Percy's testimony about the Crandall murder was thus introduced to prove an important element of the State's case-that Thompson had access to the murder weapon before the killings at Hillis Auto Sales. The State's fallback position, advanced at oral argument in this Court, is that all evidence related to the Crandall murder was properly admitted because Percy's credibility was under attack. 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 In February of 1991, [Thompson and Percy] went to New Castle, Indiana, to meet a man by the name of Wesley Crandall. Jerry Don Thompson - President - Voyager Energy Services - LinkedIn 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. Double Jeopardy Because reversal in this case is due to trial error in the admission of evidence, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, See footnote 13 generally does not bar a retrial on the same crimes. Conclusion The convictions and sentence are reversed. Wesley Crandall was a small time marihuana dealer; they went there in a pick-up truck, and Jerry Thompson took his shotgun along. This Court has jurisdiction under Indiana Appellate Rule 4(A)(7). But, the acts that [Thompson] committed up there, as they related to his case are proof of his guilt here; that's the whole reason you were able to hear it. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. [T]he Evidence shows that [Percy] did nothing to kill either of those 3 men. SHEPARD, C.J., concurs with separate opinion. 1994) (in action against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. Evidence is sufficient if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Swain v. State, 647 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. They met Mr. Crandall in his home in New Castle; they conducted their business, and when it came time to leave, they didn't leave. Percy's motive to implicate Thompson arose instantaneously because Percy essentially admitted to an accomplice role in the murders; Percy had every reason to shift culpability to Thompson while minimizing his own involvement. The only similarity here between the Crandall murder and the Indianapolis killings was the use of firearms to kill the victims (and different guns were used in each crime). Thompson and Percy each grabbed a large trash bag and drove back to Indianapolis. The bag Thompson carried contained several guns and Percy's bag contained marijuana and shell casings. The State again argued that Percy's decision to come forward led to Thompson's conviction for Crandall's murder and the release from jail of two men who had initially pleaded guilty to that crime. Percy Douglas Thompson Percy Douglas Thompson in Australia, Victoria Marriage Index, 1837-1942. Despite Thompson's actions linking the separate events, the jury was impermissibly left with the reverberating clang of the Crandall murder ringing in its ears, United States v. Merriweather, 78 F.3d 1070, 1077 (6th Cir.1996) (reversing conviction due to erroneous admission of propensity evidence) (internal quotation marks omitted), suggesting that because Thompson killed and robbed Crandall, he must have killed and robbed Hillis and Beeler too.
Dyson Competitors Analysis, Articles D