Opinion ID: 2043621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant's final assignment asserts that the court erred in admitting evidence that hair specimens taken from a hat found in the LaSalle Hotel had characteristics matching those of hair specimens taken from his head. One basis for the objection was that the evidence reflected that he had been required to wear the hat at the police lineup, giving rise to the possibility that the hair samples taken from the hat may not have been there prior to that time. We agree that from this statement of the record, the evidence should not have been admitted because of its questionable probative value and its tendency to mislead the jury. However, our examination of the record, while disclosing testimony of Officer Radecki supporting the defendant's contention (Transcript p. 2730) also discloses the subsequent testimony of Sgt. Borkowski (Transcript p. 2954) refuting Radecki's statement. The evidence upon that point, therefore, was in conflict; and there was no error in admitting the evidence objected to. An additional basis for the objection was that the testimony of the expert witness concerning the similarities in the hair specimens was inconclusive, it being admitted that two specimens of hair could be identical in all of the perceptible characteristics and yet not be from the same person. Evidence need not be conclusive to be relevant. As previously stated, relevance is the logical tendency of evidence to prove a material fact. Walker v. State, supra . The connection between the evidence and the fact sought to be proved need not be absolute. If the evidence tends to connect the defendant to the crime, it is relevant. The absence of a direct link goes only to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence. Swininger & Thomas v. State, (1976) Ind., 352 N.E.2d 473. The evidence being relevant was clearly admissible, and the weight to be accorded to it was for the jury to determine. We find no reversible error. The cause is remanded with instructions to reduce the sentence upon the second degree murder conviction to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of not less than fifteen (15) nor more than twenty-five (25) years; and in all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and ARTERBURN, DE BRULER and HUNTER, JJ., concur.