Court Opinion

ID: 9732900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:42:59.935417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:56.319197
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result. First, I note that Williams was charged with:
I. Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon,
II. Carrying a Handgun without a License,
III. Possession of a Handgun within 1000 Feet of a School, and
IV. Possession of a Handgun after a Felony Conviction.
(R. 61; State’s Exhibit 1, p. 141^5). Williams was then charged with two counts of Intimidation of a witness to those four prior offenses. Williams filed a pre-trial motion to prevent: 1) the admission of evidence of the “nature of the crimes charged” in Cause No. 87D01-9412-CF-149 and Cause No. 87D01-9412-CF-150. The first action was regarding eight counts of criminal recklessness and the second was regarding the four counts listed above; 2) the admission of evidence of Williams’s prior burglary conviction, which was the underlying felony of count TV, above: Possession of a Handgun after a Felony Conviction; 3) the admission of evidence of Williams’s current incarceration; and 4) any mention of Williams’s incarceration, “the nature of the charges now pending against Defendant in Warrick Superior Court,” or the prior burglary conviction. (Supp. R.).
*1084The motion argued lack of relevancy, prejudice, and Ind. Evidence Rule 404(b) (Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts). This motion was granted but only “to the extent of not going into the details of the criminal offense.” (Supp. R.).
The majority opinion states that admission of evidence of the four charges was “blatant overkill.” (slip op. at 9). I consider this statement to be incorrect. The four charges listed in State’s Exhibit 1, including the prior burglary conviction, are admissible under Evid.R. 404(b) in that they reveal Williams’s motive and intent to intimidate the witness. Indeed, the prior conviction was an element of count IV, above. The testimony of an officer or the county clerk in lieu of the exhibit would not eliminate any prejudice arising from the charges. Regardless, .the considerable relevance of the charges outweighs any prejudicial effect. The trial court did not err.
The Petition for Revocation of Probation (State’s Exhibit 2) listed eight other counts of Criminal Recklessness (mentioned in item 1 of Williams’s pre-trial motion), a charge of sexual misconduct, two other charges of intimidation, two charges of resisting law enforcement, and one charge of possession of a controlled substance. (R. 155-56). Though it does list the four counts of State’s Exhibit 1,1 agree that this exhibit is unfairly prejudicial and any slight relevance is outweighed thereby.
Williams objected to State’s Exhibit 2 “on the basis of my continuing objection — continuing objection and on the additional grounds that the status of the prosecution is not relevant.” (R. 153). The Exhibit was shown to the jury and the only question asked of the sponsoring witness was whether the revocation was still pending. Williams’s continuing objection initially related to the State’s direct examination of the investigating officer when questioned about the William’s pointing of a handgun. Williams objected “on the basis of my previous objection on Rules 401 through 404 and would move a continuing objection to any State’s evidence concerning the particulars of the other crimes that formed the basis of this prosecution.’' (R. 135-36) (emphasis added). This was overruled, but the court allowed the record to show the continuing objection. It is arguable whether Williams ever objected to admission of evidence relating to the other charges mentioned on the probations revocation petition.
The continuing objection only related to crimes which formed the basis of the prosecution, not subsequent crimes. It is possible to read the pre-trial motion, however, to include Williams’s criminal activity following his arrest for intimidation because it mentions “charges now pending ... in Warrick Superior Court.” (Supp. R.). The pending charges which arose after William’s arrest for intimidation were pending in Warrick Circuit Court.
I believe that Williams did not clearly state his objection but thought his continuing objection adequately protected his objection. By not requiring Williams to explicitly state his objection to State’s Exhibit 2, the trial court did not produce a clear record as to the grounds for the objection or the reason for overruling the objection. Because the prejudicial value of the exhibit outweighs the slightly relevant although redundant value, I concur in result.