Opinion ID: 2022106
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation on Cross-Examination Concerning the Evidence

Text: Morrison claims the court abused its discretion by prohibiting him from inquiring about the State's investigation and the acquisition of scientific evidence. Morrison claims the lack of physical evidence placing him at the scene of the crime was critical to contradict the testimony of the State's eyewitness. He claims that disallowing questioning about or comment on the evidence deprived him of a fair trial. If evidence is of marginal relevance, the trial court has the authority to prohibit cross-examination on that topic. Ingram v. State, 547 N.E.2d 823 (Ind.1989). Morrison sought to cross-examine a police officer for the purpose of showing there was not a trace of evidence linking him anywhere in Tatum's apartment, except in the kitchen and bedroom. None of this evidence is relevant to Morrison's guilt or innocence. Indiana Code Section 35-41-2-4 provides that if a person knowingly or intentionally aids another person to commit an offense, he himself commits that offense. Ind.Code Ann. § 35-41-2-4 (West 1986). Morrison admitted in open court that he was in Tatum's home to do him harm on two occasions: first when he initially beat Tatum and, second, when Tatum was killed. Morrison's defense thus boils down to an assertion that Graziano fired the fatal shots. Morrison argues that Graziano's testimony is the only evidence regarding his conduct in Tatum's apartment before and during the murder of Tatum. Whether Morrison fired the fatal shots is immaterial to his guilt, however, because an individual who aids another person to commit a crime is as guilty as the actual perpetrator. Pike v. State, 532 N.E.2d 3 (Ind.1989). A person may be convicted as a principal upon evidence that he or she aided or abetted in the perpetration of the charged crime. There is no separate crime of being an accessory to a crime or aiding and abetting its perpetrator. Taylor v. State, 495 N.E.2d 710, 713 (Ind. 1986). The court's limitations on this cross-examination were not an abuse of discretion.