Court Opinion

ID: 9721270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:54:26.14909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.520135
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Prentice, J.
I dissent from the decision of the majority. The general rule in Indiana for the admission of evidence of separate, independent and distinct crimes in establishing the guilt of a defendant is that such evidence is inadmissible except when relevant to show: (1) Intent, (2) Motive, (3) Purpose, (4) Identification, (5) Common scheme or plan. Watts v. State (1950), 229 Ind. 80, 95 N. E. 2d 570, and cases there cited.
It has been held that the above rule does not apply where the chief element of the offense is illicit intercourse between the sexes, and that such evidence of prior and subsequent acts is admissible subject to exclusion in the discretion of the trial court for remoteness. State v. Robbins (1943), 221 Ind. 125, 46 N. E. 2d 691.
However, this Court in 1968, by unanimous opinion written by Judge Lewis, relying principally upon Lovely v. United States (1948), Cir. Ct. of Appeals, 4th Cir., 169 F. 2d 386, determined that an individual on trial for a sexual offense should be afforded the same evidentiary safeguards against irrelevant prejudicial testimony as an individual on trial for any other felony. Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659, 234 N. E. 2d 629.
The majority opinion dismisses the Meeks case (supra) with the comment that the only issue .therein was one of consent, the sexual act having been admitted. I fail to see where *303this removes the case at bar from the rule. The evidence of the prior alleged olfense in no way shows any of the five elements above enumerated and should have been excluded.
I would further dissent from the decision affirming the conviction upon the sodomy charge for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in the case of Barnes v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 674, 266 N. E. 2d 617, and in the dissenting opinion of Judge DeBruler in Dixon v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 266, 268 N. E. 2d 84.
DeBruler, J., concurs, and in addition re-affirms his dissent in Kerlin v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 420, 265 N. E. 2d 22.
Note. — Reported in 268 N. E. 2d 299.