Opinion ID: 2183372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Exclusion of Letters from Toy

Text: Defendant also offered letters Toy wrote to him; these contained fantasies of a sexual nature which appellant claims show Toy's depraved character and therefore should have been admitted for purposes of impeachment. Appellant notes this Court's statement that the well-recognized rule that any fact tending to impair the credibility of the witness by showing ... that he is depraved in character, may be shown on cross-examination ... Dotterer v. State (1909), 172 Ind. 357, 362, 88 N.E. 689, 692. However, the balance of that statement is that ... the extent to which such cross-examination may be carried is within the sound discretion of the court. Id. The letters do not refer to any actual occurrance, but are based entirely on the imagination of the author. Appellant's argument therefore is seemingly based on the opinion that the writing of these letters is a bad act which reflects adversely on the moral character of the witness. The letters are not proper impeachment evidence for this purpose. [T]he general rule is a witness cannot be impeached by attempting to show specific acts of immorality. Polson v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 674, 207 N.E.2d 638, 640. The proper method for challenging the witness' general moral character is by proof of general reputation. Griffith v. The State (1894), 140 Ind. 163, 166, 39 N.E. 440, 441. Further, a witness' bad reputation for chastity is not proper to impeach general character. Kidwell v. State (1878), 63 Ind. 384, 385. The letters were properly excluded as impeachment evidence. The appellant further argues the the letters authored by Toy could serve as handwriting comparisons to the letters allegedly authored by defendant. It is defendant's contention that the letters were forged by Toy and that such forgery would be detected by the jury upon comparison. However, it is unclear from the record that the letters written by the defendant were ever seen by the jury; it appears that portions of the letters were simply read in court. Moreover, the judge offered to admit portions of Toy's letters for the purposes of handwriting comparison if the objectionable portions were redacted. The defendant refused the offer and thereby waived any error in the exclusion of the letters as handwriting exemplars.