However, double jeopardy forbids a retrial -- even where the defendant requests it as here -- if the reviewing court concludes that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. . Thompson filed a motion in limine before trial objecting to the admission of any evidence related to Crandall's death, including the fact of Thompson's conviction for that murder. 8. Douglas Percy Thompson Born: 3 . Because a conviction in a capital case may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046, 1053 (Ind.1989) (citation omitted), the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude a retrial. I don't think a signature, in quotes, is a required. View the profiles of people named Jerry Thompson. Percy Douglas Thompson Percy Douglas Thompson in Australia, Victoria Marriage Index, 1837-1942. His testimony was an essential element in the chain of evidence pointing to Thompson as the killer. Wooden v. State, 657 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind.1995). United States v. Smith, 80 F.3d 1188, 1193 (7th Cir. Observing that Thompson had challenged Percy's credibility in opening arguments, the State maintained that some detail was needed to give the jury sufficient context in which to understand, and therefore credit, Percy's testimony about how Thompson acquired the gun used to kill Hillis and Beeler. 2. 1989) (testimony concerning prior robbery was admissible in murder trial because the defendant had stolen the same type of pistol used to kill the victim); United States v. Day, 591 F.2d 861 (D.C. Cir. Unnecessary and inflammatory detail may require reversal. The fact of Thompson's conviction for murdering Crandall was wholly irrelevant to establishing his access to the murder weapon. Whether it was necessary to show that Thompson shot Crandall is a closer question, but we need not decide that point because the other material admitted clearly went beyond the pale and requires reversal. As a result, the, decision to admit evidence of Thompson's access to the gun, and the State's offer of corroborative evidence to support Percy's version of the events in New Castle, was within the trial court's discretion. Thompson v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1165 (Ind.1996). Thompson's access to the gun was an important piece of circumstantial proof increasing the likelihood that he was the killer (or at least not excluding that possibility). doug percy jerry thompson The State all but urged the jury to make the forbidden inference. In the end, an impermissible flood of damaging propensity evidence washed away Thompson's right to a fair trial. Observing that Thompson had challenged Percy's credibility in opening arguments, the State maintained that some detail was needed to give the jury "sufficient context" in which to understand, and therefore credit, Percy's testimony about how Thompson acquired the gun used to kill Hillis and Beeler. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. In March 1992, Percy approached Indianapolis police with what he claimed was information about Thompson's involvement in the killings. 5. Two witnesses-the forensic pathologist and Percy's friend Mike Featheringill-testified to how Crandall died. Citing several cases, the State nonetheless urges a more expansive view of the, identity exception to include evidence of prior crimes in which an instrumentality used in the current crime was acquired. It also placed Percy himself at each of these crime scenes. This cause is remanded for a new trial. This discussion of the Crandall murder followed: [W]hen [Percy] came forward to the Police he insisted that he needed to tell them about something that happened in New Castle, Indiana. Although this testimony was admitted only to show that the gun had been in Thompson's possession before the crimes in this case, the State was allowed to elicit significant details of the prior murder and to establish that Thompson was convicted for it. When the defendant objects on the ground that the admission of particular evidence would violate Rule 404(b), the following test should be applied: (1) the court must determine that the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is relevant to a matter at issue other than the defendant's propensity to commit the charged act; and (2) the court must balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect pursuant to Rule 403. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident Citing Evidence Rules 402 (relevance) and 403 (balance of probative value and prejudice), Thompson argues that the State elicited far more evidence about Crandall's death than was necessary to prove this aspect of its case.
Vanderbilt Heme Onc Fellowship,
Nixon Funeral Home Tifton, Ga Obituaries,
Articles D