Opinion ID: 2125556
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Victim's Character

Text: Holder argues that the trial court improperly excluded certain testimony concerning Westmoreland's character. Proof of a homicide victim's character is generally prohibited. Phillips v. State (1990), Ind., 550 N.E.2d 1290. If a defendant raises a self-defense claim, however, an exception is made. Evidence of the victim's character may be admitted for either of two distinct purposes: to show that the victim had a violent character giving the defendant reason to fear him or to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. Id. Evidence of specific bad acts is admissible to prove that the victim had a violent character which frightened the defendant. Id. However, only general reputation evidence of the victim's violent nature is admissible to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor. Norris v. State (1986), Ind., 498 N.E.2d 1203, 1205. If the defendant wishes to introduce either type of character evidence, she must first introduce appreciable evidence of the victim's aggression to substantiate the self-defense claim. Phillips, 550 N.E.2d at 1297. When offering specific bad acts evidence to prove the victim's violent character frightened her, the defendant must also provide a foundation showing that she knew about the specific bad acts in question before she killed the defendant. Id. Holder claims that she was denied the due process of law as a result of the following exchange during the examination of her daughter, Denise Kniep: Q879 Did Todd have a temper? BY ROGER DUVALL [Prosecutor]: Objection, I don't think that is relevant. BY RALPH RANDALL [Defense Counsel]: Your honor it is certainly relevant to an altercation such as this, one of the elements here is whether my client acted under heat, one of the elements of self defense is whether my client was scared. BY ROGER DUVALL: And if he wishes to try and establish fear on the part of Bonnie Holder, your honor, he must do it through her and not another witness. BY THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Record at 441-42. To establish that Holder feared the deceased, she was entitled to introduce evidence of acts of violence of which she was aware. The question posed to Kniep did not request information of this sort, and the objection to it was properly sustained. Proper evidence was later placed before the jury during Holder's own testimony: Q1084 Do you know of a specific instance where Todd had exhibited an act of violence towards you? A Yes he has gotten angry with me before, he has put his finger in my face and started screamin' at me and told me just to, you know, back off and over at T & T when we lived in that little house there and he tried to break in the backdoor that one day or one night and he was going around lookin'  Denise was inside and she wouldn't talk to him, they were havin' a fight and uh he tried to break in the back door that night and he couldn't get in but he did bust the bottom of the door and then he went around and he was lookin' in the windows tryin' to talk to Denise or see Denise or whatever and I told him that night he better leave or I was going to call the police; well I thought about it, I really didn't want to call the police on him so when I didn't see him out there I went next door to T & T Video and used their phone and I called his father up and told his dad he better come get him or I was going to call the police. Record at 474-75. In sum, the exclusion of Kniep's testimony did not deprive Holder of the due process of law.