Opinion ID: 2183231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issue 1 Prior Conviction Evidence

Text: After taking the witness stand in his own defense, defendant was questioned regarding a prior conviction for confinement. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his timely objection. This Court has recognized that in rape cases where consent is the only issue, evidence suggesting a prior rape with a different victim is inadmissible as probative evidence that the defendant committed the charged crime. Malone v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 1339; Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659, 234 N.E.2d 629. The State has argued that the prior conviction is admissible as impeachment evidence under Ashton v. Anderson (1972), 258 Ind. 51, 279 N.E.2d 210, which recognized Ind. Code § 34-1-14-14 as permitting impeachment by showing prior convictions for crimes which would have rendered a witness incompetent. Among such crimes is kidnapping. The parties disagree regarding whether defendant's prior conviction of confinement should be accorded the same significance as the crime of kidnapping. This issue was well addressed by Judge Neal in Lessig v. State (1986), Ind. App., 489 N.E.2d 978, 982: [W]e conclude that criminal confinement is the very essence of kidnapping, and that the current crime of criminal confinement in fact embodies the 1972 crime of kidnapping. Not only are their elements extremely similar, but the same moral turpitude involved in the crime of kidnapping, resulting in it being labeled as an infamous crime is also involved in the crime of criminal confinement. We agree and find no error in admission of evidence of the prior conviction for criminal confinement.