Opinion
No. 78A05–1305–CR–211.
2014-01-27
Daniel Lee PIERCE, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
Moving forward to the admission of evidence, I agree with the majority's disposition of every issue, except for the majority's determination that the trial court erred in permitting the admission of the domain names of the pornography websites. Indeed, similar to the majority's analysis of how K.P.'s testimony was supported by the testimony of witnesses who had observed pornography in Pierce's room, memo op. at 15, the names of the internet websites bolsters the victims' testimony. Put another way, the names of the websites were neither irrelevant nor mere propensity evidence in light of the children's testimony that, as stated above, indicates a plan or scheme. See Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 218 (Ind.1997) (stating that evidence of other wrongs may be admissible to show “proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident”). Consequently, I do not think the trial court erred by allowing the domain names into evidence and respectfully dissent on that issue as well.