Court Opinion

ID: 9716904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:53:35.804209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:49.895599
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority is clearly correct in ruling that the photographs taken from proseculant’s home were erroneously admitted into evidence. In Clifford v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 963, the trial court had allowed limitaprosecution to display to the jury a sexually explicit movie found in the defendant’s home, and we affirmed. There, the child victim testified that the defendant had showed her the film during one of the occasions upon which he had sought to engage in sexually deviant conduct with her. The thread of relevance was clear there; however, no such thread exists here.
The photographs, erroneously admitted into evidence against appellant, depicted sexual conduct of adults which was unusual in nature. There is a real danger that the jury would have inferred from the possession and use of these photos by appellant, that he was sexually abnormal in one way, and thus more likely to have been sexually abnormal in his conduct toward his young daughters. In this way the irrelevant photos would have added weight to the probative value of the State’s case. In my opinion, the photos themselves demonstrate the prejudice to the defense stemming from their erroneous admission. The use of items which are irrelevant and tend only to put the accused in a bad light has no place in the trial of criminal charges. I would therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.