Opinion ID: 2251424
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Letter Written by Co-defendant

Text: Hansford argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a letter written by his co-defendant and addressed to Edd Waldo. One theory of appellant's defense was that Waldo was the second man who participated in the Cass robbery with Gibbens. He claims that the admission of this letter was prejudicial to him since the letter essentially exculpates Waldo and thus is harmful to his defense theory. While Gibbens was in prison he received a letter from defendant's counsel Smith, requesting Gibbens' cooperation as a witness against Mr. Waldo to show that he was one of the participants in the Cass burglary. Gibbens wrote a letter to Waldo about this request (State's exhibit 42), in which he quoted the relevant portion of the letter which Smith wrote to him and then stated that he would not testify of any such thing because you did not commit that robbery Edd and we both know it. The court admitted Gibbens' letter into evidence for the limited purpose of allowing the State to ask questions about the statement that Waldo did not commit the robbery. When questioned by the State, Gibbens verified that the statement he wrote to Waldo was true: Waldo had not participated in the Cass robbery. Evidence on an issue is relevant when it renders the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. Connell v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 701. Evidence is generally admissible if it has a tendency to prove or disprove a material fact. May v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1084. However, evidence otherwise admissible may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The admission or rejection of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. This letter indicated that Waldo did not participate in the Cass robbery. While this evidence may have harmed appellant's trial strategy to implicate Waldo as the second participant in the crimes, the evidence had the tendency to disprove a material fact which was in dispute and was thus relevant. The court was within its discretion in concluding that the relevance of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.