Court Opinion

ID: 9543668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:47:52.528246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:53.256137
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
Jeannette, the alleged victim, was permitted to testify over objection that appellant, during his first visit to her residence six hours before the attack, told her that he had been into trouble with assault and battery in relation to fights with his wife and another person. In my view, the ruling of the trial court permitting this testimony was not error. Appellant’s admission was part of a conversation which was closely related to the rape charged, and which completes the story of the crime on trial by *1122proving its immediate context. McCormick, Evidence § 190; Maldonado v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 492, 355 N.E.2d 843. The inference, if any, arising from the statement on the back of appellant’s photograph, would have the same import, namely, that appellant had had a prior unspecified brush with the law. It can be said therefore, with “fair assurance” that any error in permitting the introduction of the photograph because it revealed some past criminal conduct, did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. Kotteakos v. United States, (1946) 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557.
I therefore vote to affirm the conviction.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.