James J. Wyatt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 12 2016, 8:02 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michelle F. Kraus Gregory F. Zoeller Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James J. Wyatt, February 12, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A05-1507-CR-840 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05-1501-F6-4

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 Page 1 of 5 ^[1] James Wyatt appeals the judgment of the trial court, arguing that it erred in

admitting a ten-minute video of him losing his temper while being held for

interrogation at the police station. Finding that any error in the admission of

this video was invited by Wyatt, we affirm.

Facts ^[2] On Christmas Day 2014, Wyatt’s father, Anthony Williams, invited Wyatt to

his house for breakfast. At some point, the two began to argue and Williams

asked Wyatt to leave. Wyatt remained hostile so Williams decided to leave the

house himself. As Williams walked down the street, he called 911. He could

hear Wyatt yelling behind him, warning him to put down the phone. When

Williams turned around, he saw Wyatt pointing a gun at him. Williams then

began to run down the street. Police arrived at the scene shortly thereafter, but

Wyatt had fled.

^[3] The next day, police arrested Wyatt at a gas station. He was carrying a replica

handgun on his person and a real handgun and ammunition were found inside

his car. Williams would later identify the real handgun as the one he had seen

Wyatt point at him. On January 2, 2015, the State charged Wyatt with

Level 6 felony pointing a firearm and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness. On

May 12, 2015, a jury found Wyatt guilty as charged. On June 22, 2015, the

trial court sentenced Wyatt to concurrent terms of two years and 183 days for

pointing a firearm and two years for criminal recklessness. Wyatt now appeals.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 Page 2 of 5  Discussion and Decision ^[4] Wyatt argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence at trial.

The decision to admit or exclude evidence rests within the discretion of the trial

court and we will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion. Crocker v. State, 989

N.E.2d 812, 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial

court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and

circumstances before it or if it has misinterpreted the law. Id.

^[5] The evidence at issue here consists of a ten-minute video showing Wyatt in an

interrogation room, mostly by himself, losing his temper. State’s Ex. 1. The

trial court had granted a pretrial motion to exclude this video from evidence,

but changed its mind after finding that Wyatt had opened the door to its

admission through his testimony. A review of the record shows that Wyatt said

nothing during his direct examination that would have opened the door to the

admission of this video. Tr. p. 202-09. However, while being cross-examined

by the State, Wyatt was asked if he had been cooperative with the officers on

the day that he was arrested. Tr. p. 215. Wyatt responded that he had been.

^[6] “It is generally true that when a witness offers evidence of his own character, he

opens the door to the subject of his character for that trait placed in issue, and

the State can introduce evidence of specific misconduct in rebuttal.” Newman v.

State, 719 N.E.2d 832, 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). However, statements made in

response to questions asked on cross-examination in regard to collateral matters

cannot be relied upon to open the door. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 Page 3 of 5 ^[7] Wyatt’s cooperation with the police, or lack thereof, is a collateral matter, as

evidence of it would not be admissible for any other purpose than to contradict

Wyatt’s statement on the issue. See Shriner v. State, 829 N.E.2d 612, 621 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2005). This Court has made clear that

collateral matters may not be the basis for impeachment. A party may inquire into a collateral matter on cross-examination, but the questioner is then ‘bound by the answer’ received; the impeaching party cannot thereafter offer extrinsic evidence to disprove the answer unless the extrinsic evidence would be independently admissible.

Highley v. State, 535 N.E.2d 1241, 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (citing Wells v.

State, 158 N.E.2d 256, 263, 239 Ind. 415, 428 (1959) (“[t]his rule is necessary in

order that there be a definite end to interrogation regarding collateral matters;”

“[o]therwise, litigation might be extended ad infinitum”)); see also Ind. Evidence

Rule 608(b).

^[8] However, we need not question whether the above authorities require us to

reverse the trial court’s judgment in this case because we find that any error in

the admission of the video was invited by Wyatt. Following Wyatt’s cross-

examination, the State sought once again to introduce the video. The trial

court met with both parties outside the presence of the jury and asked Wyatt if

he had testified, on direct examination, that he had cooperated with the police

on the day that he was arrested. Tr. p. 226-27. Wyatt answered affirmatively.

Id. at 227. The trial court, not having the benefit of a typed transcript to

reference, took Wyatt at his word, and admitted the video for impeachment

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5  purposes. The trial court took the additional step of instructing the jury that it

was only to consider the video for its impeachment value.

^[9] “A party may not invite error, then later argue that the error supports reversal.”

Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490, 494 (Ind. 1995). Here, the trial court was led

to believe that Wyatt had informed the jury on direct examination that he was

cooperative with the police, and it admitted the video at issue because the video

tended to show otherwise. The trial court believed that Wyatt had testified in

this manner because Wyatt himself informed the trial court that he had.

Therefore, it is clear that any error in the admission of this video was invited by

Wyatt, and the issue is not subject to appellate review.

^[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1507-CR-840 | February 12, 2016 Page 5 of 5