doug percy jerry thompsonwhen will pa vote on senate bill 350 2021

See, e.g., Watson v. State, 540 N.E.2d 598 (Ind.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.1978) (evidence of prior robbery was properly allowed where the murder weapon was taken during the robbery and was later found in the house where the defendant was arrested).9 The issue, however, is whether that discretion was abused in the quantity and quality of the evidence admitted to corroborate Percy's testimony on this collateral point. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The State also claims that any prejudice to Thompson was offset by a limiting instruction to the jury to constrain its consideration of prior acts to the issue of identity. It cannot be expected to make its decision in a void United States v. Moore, 735 F.2d 289, 292 (8th Cir.1984). denied; Pirnat v. State, 612 N.E.2d 153, 155 (Ind. Our cases have long admonished that "one crime cannot be proved in order to establish another distinct crime even though they be of the same kind. The third result is Douglas Edwin Percy age 60s in Marblehead, MA in the Marblehead neighborhood. Evidence of Prior Uncharged Misconduct On February 14, 1991, one month before the murders in this case, Wesley Crandall Jr. was shot to death in his home in New Castle, Indiana. Douglas is related to Greg S Percy and Theresa Marie Percy as well as 1 additional person. 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. 2d 1028 (1964) (per curiam) (conviction reversed because five jurors had been present when the defendant's conviction of a similar charge was announced in open court before the trial); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. The jury's verdict reflects a decision to credit Percy's testimony that this, Court, as an appellate tribunal, would ordinarily not question. cuando tu pareja te miente frases virginia rockhounding map doug percy jerry thompson. 2d 265 (1988). The jury also returned convictions for two counts of felony murder, Ind.Code 35-42-1-1(2) (Supp.1989), which were merged into the murder convictions. Join Facebook to connect with Jerry Thompson and others you may know. Lannan, 600 N.E.2d at 1338. The State all but urged the jury to make the forbidden inference. doug percy jerry thompson. [T]he Evidence shows that [Percy] did nothing to kill either of those 3 men. The officers put the other prisoners back in the cells, then recovered several knives from the . . 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. Is proof of that conviction in New Castle, proof of his guilt in this case? Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind.1992). They are far from justifying irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence that has no relation to that point or to any other material fact in dispute. The prosecutor referred not only to Percy's allegations, but also to their validation in the form of Thompson's murder conviction. When this mandate is observed, the conviction will not be disturbed. The Seventh Circuit held that the fact that the possessor had been killed was admissible to prove his lack of consent to the transfer of possession and, therefore, that the car had been stolen from him. What does Mr. Percy have to lose? When shown the handgun allegedly used to kill Hillis and Beeler, Percy testified that it "looks like the 'one' [Thompson] always carried," and that it resembled "one of the guns" that was taken from Crandall's house. In April 1991, Thompson destroyed all the guns taken from Crandall except the handgun, a second gun also admitted in evidence, and a .22 derringer that was sold to a third party. Bone.. Looks. Evidence of Prior Uncharged Misconduct. C. The State's case in chief When Percy began to testify about the events surrounding the Crandall murder, the defense objected and renewed its contention that this evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 404(b). The defense argued that the court's pretrial ruling permitted evidence that the gun allegedly used to kill Hillis and Beeler had been taken from Crandall when he was killed, and nothing more. Even where a prior criminal act is relevant to a material fact, the potential for unfair prejudice dictates that the evidence of the prior misconduct be limited to that necessary to prove the disputed fact. If the extraneous details, of the killing were inadmissible in Ostrowsky -- a case involving car theft -- the prejudice to Thompson in a second murder prosecution is an a fortiori case. Indeed, our decisions have cautioned that evidence of prior misconduct offered to bolster a key witness's testimony as to the current charge, although often probative on that point, is also quite prejudicial. 1993). 3. Thompson and Percy each grabbed a large trash bag and drove back to Indianapolis. Rather, he chose to attack Percy's credibility. In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the State asserted that proof of the conviction was relevant to show identity and because Percy's credibility had been attacked. The fact of a shotgun wound could perhaps have been established by a police officer or otherwise without getting into whether it was fatal. In the end, an impermissible flood of damaging propensity evidence washed away Thompson's right to a fair trial. 1991) (distinguishing Ostrowsky and lauding trial court's "sanitized and tightly controlled" admission of evidence of prior murder and "vigilant efforts to minimize its prejudicial impact"). Moreover, the State emphasized the prior misconduct in its opening statement, during the case in chief, and again in its closing argument. He didn't stomp on him; he didn't take a shotgun and nearly blow his head off. A forensic pathologist who testified as to the causes of death of Hillis and Beeler was coincidentally the same doctor who performed Wesley Crandall's autopsy. Rather than telling the jury to disregard the disputed evidence completely because it was not admissible for any purpose, the limiting instruction here instructed the jury to limit its consideration of prior acts to identity. Sometime after that 2 retarded men were coerced into admitting that they killed Wesley Crandall, were convicted; they went to prison, and but, for Doug Percy coming forward, they would probably still be there. 8. And, he took Wesley Crandall's money that was there, and the marihuana. The propensity evidence in this case crossed that line by a wide margin. They have also lived in Phippsburg, ME and Beverly, MA. 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. in the event that any such attack may open the door to the use of such evidence." Bowen v. State, 680 N.E.2d 536, 540 (Ind. Percy gave the following account. Jerry Don Thompson (born November 21, 1942) is Regents Professor of History at Texas A&M International University in Laredo, Texas. Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. Thompson pointed the gun at Crandall, but it made a clicking sound and would not fire. The guards noticed a disturbance. This cause is remanded for a new trial. Without that knowledge it is impossible to conclude what, if any, validation of Percy the conviction represents. Percy testified that Thompson shot Crandall. What particular parts of this mass might be fair rebuttal will, of course, depend on how the two parties elect to shape the presentation of their principal cases. Although Percy's account of the Crandall murder in its particulars was uncontradicted and largely unchallenged, the State offered further detailed evidence about those events. Brewer noted that, as in habitual offender proceedings, the death penalty information must be pleaded on a separate page from the charging instrument to "shield [the defendant] from the hazard of having the knowledge of his prior criminal record prematurely imparted to the jury. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964) (per curiam) (conviction reversed because five jurors had been present when the defendant's conviction of a similar charge was announced in open court before the trial); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.1994) (in action against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. The defense closed by cautioning the jury that the State wants to try and bootstrap the events of February 14th, 1991, into scaring you into convicting Jerry Thompson for the events of March 14th. Pointing to Percy's own testimony that he was not always truthful, the defense urged that Percy was a liar who implicated Thompson to avoid prosecution for altering a vehicle identification number and possible culpability for his role in the three killings. II. . Rule 403 required exclusion More importantly, evidence of a prior conviction is as prejudicial as evidence can get, and requires a strong showing of probative value. Jerry K. THOMPSON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). 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. Their BuildZoom score of 92 ranks in the top 32% of 55,949 Colorado licensed contractors. On February 12, 1991, two days prior to the murder, Thompson instructed his girlfriend to purchase a twelve-gauge shotgun and ammunition. 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. Thompson's contention is meritless. Wesley Crandall was a small time marihuana dealer; they went there in a pick-up truck, and Jerry Thompson took his shotgun along. 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. Because we conclude that the extensive evidence of the prior crime was inadmissible under Indiana Evidence Rules 402, 403, and 404(b), and denied Thompson a fair trial, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. 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. Brewer also established that the jury is impermissibly tainted "when the aggravating circumstance to be charged is either a prior murder conviction, a prior murder unrelated to the current offense, or a prior life sentence." The fact of Thompson's conviction for murdering Crandall was wholly irrelevant to establishing his access to the murder weapon. 1995). The fact of Thompson's conviction for murdering Crandall was wholly irrelevant to establishing his access to the murder weapon. Prospective jurors were told the following: Jerry K. Thompson has been convicted of another Murder; that is, a judgment of conviction for the murder of Wesley A. Crandall, Junior, was entered against Jerry K. Thompson on the 15th day of June, 1993, in Henry County, Indiana, in cause #33D019207CF027 The three other aggravating circumstances were: (1) two counts of committing an intentional killing while committing or attempting to commit a robbery, Ind.Code 35-50-2-9(b)(1) (Supp.1990); and (2) one count of committing another murder at any time, Ind.Code 35-50-2-9(b)(8) (Supp.1990). One of the defendants had killed the possessor of the car (who apparently had stolen the vehicle himself) before the car was driven from Indiana to Illinois. Ct. App. Specifically, prospective jurors were informed, verbatim, of the four aggravating circumstances the State had pleaded against Thompson in the death penalty information. The proffered conviction here does not approach the probative value required to outweigh that prejudice under Rule 403. Resides in Mead, WA. United States v. Burke, 948 F.2d 23 (1st Cir.1991) (bootstrapping testimony related to extrinsic acts is admissible but only to the extent it is relevant to a material fact). Accordingly, over Thompson's objection, an officer with the New Castle Police Department was allowed to testify that he attended Thompson's trial in Henry County for Crandall's murder, thirty to forty witnesses were called (including Percy), and that the jury convicted Thompson. The State maintained that it understood the pretrial ruling on Rule 404(b) to allow evidence of the conviction itself, and that it relied on this interpretation in referring to the conviction in opening arguments. Arguably this prerequisite is not satisfied here. If there is one lesson to take from this case, it is that Thompson's questioning Percy's, credibility did not open a door through which all evidence related to the Crandall murder could automatically pass. The relevance and balancing issues are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In its opening argument, the State outlined the events surrounding the Hillis and Beeler murders, and then explained Percy's delayed decision to come forward to tell police what he knew about Thompson's involvement. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Join Facebook to connect with Jerry Thompson and others you may know. 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. The State lauded Percy in its closing argument as the man who helped solve both the Indianapolis killings at issue here and Crandall's murder a month earlier: [I]n the process of telling the Police Department and other Law Enforcement authorities those things that he knew, [Percy] solved 3 murders. All contact info about Douglas E Percy, 61 from Marblehead, Massachusetts - address, e-mail, phone, public records, etc at Inforver FOR FREE. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. We first take up an issue not raised by the parties. Percy was the only witness conclusively placing Thompson at the scene. . 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. In a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the State asserted that proof of the conviction was relevant to show identity and because Percy's credibility had been attacked. See, e.g., Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075, 1083 (Ind. . Despite the fact that Percy's description of Crandall's killing was largely uncontradicted and unchallenged, the State pointed to the testimony of several witnesses-the gun dealer who sold Crandall the murder weapon that Thompson eventually stole, the forensic pathologist who concluded that Crandall died of a gunshot wound to the head-to corroborate Percy's account. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 1 . A. Rather, the defense elicited from Percy that he had not been charged with any crime related to those events and that his charge for altering a vehicle identification number was dismissed in exchange for his cooperation in this case. While we have reversed on the basis of evidence improperly admitted during the State's case in chief, it might turn out that discrete pieces of this evidence would be admissible as rebuttal. In rebuttal, the State replied that the events surrounding the Crandall murder were relevant: The reason it's relevant is because it proves [Thompson's] identity. Unnecessary and inflammatory detail may require reversal. If the fact of conviction for a prior murder is presumptively prejudicial, the gruesome details of that offense may be even more damaging. . 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. Rule 404(b) is on the books because evidence of prior crimes is presumptively prejudicial. Id. 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. However, the jury's apparent decision to believe Percy may have turned on the wrongly admitted evidence. By - June 16, 2022. According to Percy, on the day of the killings, he and Thompson went to Hillis Auto Sales where, without any forewarning, Thompson shot both victims and Thompson and Percy robbed them. The jury therefore knew from the outset that Thompson had been a killer and a thief in the past. The State responds that a portrayal of the Crandall murder was not prohibited by Rule 404(b) because it helped prove Thompson's identity as the killer. The allegedly corroborative evidence here was irrelevant. One of the aggravating circumstances was Thompson's prior conviction of the murder of Wesley Crandall Jr., discussed in more detail below.4 Although it was proper to inform prospective jurors of the crimes charged, the trial court erred in advising the jury of the death penalty information before the sentencing phase. The charging information, witness list, and verdict form from Henry County were admitted into evidence at that point. For example, in United States v. Ostrowsky, 501 F.2d 318 (7th Cir.1974), the defendants were charged with concealing a stolen car and moving it in interstate commerce. The serial numbers on the handgun were ground off. The State's claim that any prejudice to Thompson was cured by a limiting instruction is unpersuasive. Join Facebook to connect with Percy Thompson and others you may know. 1995) (evidence as to defendant's four prior, convictions for dealing in cocaine should not have been admitted in prosecution for cocaine possession), trans. 11. "See footnote 5 Brewer, 275 Ind. I don't think a signature, in quotes, is a required. Evans, 563 N.E.2d at 1259. She testified that in December 1990 she sold Crandall a handgun similar to the alleged murder weapon in this case. . Thompson argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Columbus, Indiana gun dealer Velma Brown. View the profiles of people named Jerry Thompson. That's what identifies him with being associated with that gun. As Brewer put it, in the latter situation [t]he killing and the robbery were the same res. Brewer, 275 Ind. 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. There is nothing in the record indicating on what basis it was admitted into evidence over Thompson's objection. The proffered conviction here does not approach the probative value required to outweigh that prejudice under Rule 403. The State did not refer at this stage, however, to the point for which evidence of the Crandall murder was originally held to be admissible -- to show that Thompson had access to the murder weapon before the crimes. Ind.Code 35-50-2-9(b)(1) (Supp.1990). As of July 1, 2006 Home Page| You can send your sympathy in the guestbook provided and share it with the . . Thompson retrieved a pillow from another room, placed it over Crandall's head, and fired. It is valid as a logical proposition only if one has an understanding of all the dynamics of the Crandall trial. And, who does [the State] say was in Illinois in June of 1991, when [Thompson] was stopped by [Illinois police]? Genealogy record of %1. The list of "other purposes" in the Rule is not exhaustive; extrinsic act evidence may be admitted for any purpose not specified in Rule 404(b) unless precluded by, the first sentence of Rule 404(b) or any other Rule. 0. In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to. Id. 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. Indeed, the jury could have convicted Thompson on Percy's testimony alone. Id. Moreover, the State emphasized the prior misconduct in its opening statement, during the case in chief, and again in its closing argument. He did not break 510, 130 pound Wesley Crandall's neck. [W]hen you retire to that Jury Room after evaluating the credibility of Mr. Percy, listening to all the Evidence, you're going to have doubts." View the profiles of professionals named "Doug Percy" on LinkedIn. 4. Also known as Jerry Gthompson. THOMPSON SUFFERED SEVERAL FATAL STAB WOUNDS. The trial court ruled that the State would be allowed "to simply explain presence and then cut it off and let's get on." 338, 367-68, 417 N.E.2d 889, 905-06 (1981); Evans v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1251, 1259 (Ind. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535, 542-43 (Ind. 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. Includes Address (14) Phone (8) Email (7) See Results. The defense responded that the conviction was: (1) "impermissible bolstering" of Percy; (2) irrelevant to proving what happened at Hillis Auto Sales on the day of the murders; and (3) too prejudicial to be outweighed by any probative value. Our cases have long admonished that one crime cannot be proved in order to establish another distinct crime even though they be of the same kind. 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. at 321, were unfairly prejudicial and required a new trial. To prove that Thompson was the perpetrator, the State presented evidence that he stole the murder weapon, a handgun, in the course of committing a different murder a month earlier. The details of the prior murder were irrelevant. The allegedly corroborative evidence here was irrelevant. The identity exception to the general prohibition on propensity evidence is crafted primarily for signature crimes with a common modus operandi. In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the remaining claims of error.12. Thompson is currently serving a ninety-year sentence for that crime. Douglas Percy. One thing was certain, by the time he reached manhood, Jerry Thompson was a savage killer. . It is always difficult saying goodbye to someone we love and cherish. Jerry A Thompson, 80.

Spanish Arias For Soprano, Meritain Health Provider, Articles D