concurrence">BAKER, Judge,

concurring in result.

I agree with the result reached here because, as the majority aptly observes, Beaty was able to place before the jury some evidence of Hohler's prior misconduct at Lowe's that did not involve Beaty. Hence, Beaty was sufficiently able to explore Hohler's bias notwithstanding the exclusion of other evidence regarding Hoh-let's specific acts of misconduct.

However, I write separately to set forth my views regarding the trial court's limitation on the cross-examination of Hohler with respect to other thefts and wrongdoing by Hohler that did not involve Beaty. I fully embrace the spirit of Indiana Evidence Rule 608(b), which prohibits the inquiry into specific instances of misconduct unless there is a conviction of a crime as provided in Rule 609. To be sure, the rule produces a logical and practical result under most circumstances.

However, in this case, Beaty consistently maintained that he was "the dupe" of Hohler, while the State's position was that Beaty was the primary beneficiary of a joint plan between himself and Hohler to obtain building materials at large discounts or for free. Appellant's Br. p. 12. By limiting Beaty's cross-examination of Hohler in accordance with Indiana Evidence Rule 608, the trial court excluded evidence establishing that Hohler had an added incentive to curry the State's favor in order to avoid prosecution for other criminal acts precisely because of the plea agreement offered by the State. And, as noted by the majority, several of these acts had not been reduced to a conviction. As a result, Beaty was effectively prevented from delving into additional reasons why Hohler would be biased against Beaty in favor of the State. Hohler certainly had reasons to remain in the State's good graces in order to avoid prosecution for his other acts of misconduct during his employment at Lowe's. When the State dismissed the two counts of theft against Hohler, Beaty was denied the opportunity to fully expose Hohler's biases and motives and the chance to explore the reasons surrounding Hohler's motivation to testify as he did.

In circumstances such as these, where the State has offered a deal to a witness that results in the avoidance of prosecution, the State essentially retains the unfettered discretion to decide the extent to which the jury should learn about a witness's character. In my view, such a restriction on the ability to cross-examine does not comport with the goals of Evidence Rule 608. That said, I am of the belief that yet another exception to the rule preventing the admission of specific acts of misconduct in the absence of a conviction should follow when cireum-stances such as these arise.

In any event, because Beaty was able to present some evidence of Hohler's misconduct, as well as evidence pertaining to Hohler's plea agreement thereby establishing Hohler's possible bias, I concur in the result reached by the majority in affirming Beaty's convictions.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress