doug percy jerry thompsondoug percy jerry thompson

285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. denied; Pirnat v. State, 612 N.E.2d 153, 155 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (in prosecution for child molesting, [t]estimony regarding the previous [child molesting] conviction and details of the previous molestation were obviously highly prejudicial) (citation and footnote omitted); United States v. Cox, 536 F.2d 65, 72 (5th Cir.1976) (admission of a rap sheet detailing the defendant's criminal record, including prior convictions, was reversible error). The issue is whether evidence beyond that appropriate to establish access to the gun was admitted and, if so, whether it was harmless error. These criteria mirror Evidence Rules 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). The State responded that his testimony was admissible under Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B) as a prior consistent statement to rebut Thompson's recent charge of improper motive. He didn't stomp on him; he didn't take a shotgun and nearly blow his head off. In the next few weeks, Thompson used Percy's garage to grind the serial numbers off the weapons taken from Crandall's residence. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. Rule 404(b) is on the books because evidence of prior crimes is presumptively prejudicial. 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. If the fact of conviction for a prior murder is presumptively prejudicial, the gruesome details of that offense may be even more damaging. Facebook gives people the power. THOMPSON SUFFERED SEVERAL FATAL STAB WOUNDS. Instead what happened, was Jerry Thompson took his shotgun and he blew part of Wesley Crandall's head off, and killed him. 1974), the defendants were charged with concealing a stolen car and moving it in interstate commerce. Rule 404(b) is on the books because evidence of prior crimes is presumptively prejudicial. See Part I supra. For this reason, it has long been established that prospective jurors are not to know of prior convictions until the penalty phase. at 368, 417 N.E.2d at 906. The fact of a shotgun wound could perhaps have been established by a police officer or otherwise without getting into whether it was fatal. The trial court ruled that the State would be allowed "to simply explain presence and then cut it off and let's get on." 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. This [is] the gun that came from there. . That is not the end of the analysis, however. Douglas Percy. Brewer v. State, 275 Ind. This cause is remanded for a new trial. A. See, e.g., Swain v. State, 647 N.E.2d 23 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (evidence as to defendant's four prior convictions for dealing in cocaine should not have been admitted in prosecution for cocaine possession), trans. 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. Illinois state police recovered a nine-millimeter handgun from the vehicle that ballistics tests later determined was the weapon used to kill Hillis and Beeler. The State's contention that the extra details of the Crandall murder helped prove identity is unpersuasive. There is enormous potential for prejudice in the guilt phase if the jury is permitted to know from the outset, in a murder case, that the defendant is a convicted killer. 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. The charging information, witness list, and verdict form from Henry County were admitted into evidence at that point. 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. 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. The State's contention that the extra details of the Crandall murder helped prove identity is unpersuasive. Although this testimony was admitted only to show that the gun had been in Thompson's possession before the crimes in this case, the State was allowed to elicit significant details of the prior murder and to establish that Thompson was convicted for it. When this mandate is observed, the conviction will not be disturbed. The admissibility of the Crandall murder evidence was contested from the outset. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535, 542-43 (Ind.1995). In the next few weeks, Thompson used Percy's garage to grind the serial numbers off the weapons taken from Crandall's residence. Because the effect of this testimony on the jury was at best speculative, and likely negligible in light of the more inflammatory evidence presented related to Crandall's murder, we see no basis for reversal on this point. However, Thompson conceded in his second motion that the State was "entitled to show that Thompson had access to or control over the weapon used to commit the murders of Hillis and Beeler." The well established rationale behind Evidence Rule 404(b) is that the jury is precluded from making the forbidden inference that the defendant had a criminal propensity and therefore engaged in the charged conduct. . Percy passed away in 1948, at age 59 at death place. . Also known as Jerry Gthompson. Douglas Percy. Bone.. Looks. Brewer distinguished between aggravating circumstances that are extraneous to the crime currently charged, such as a prior murder conviction, and an aggravating circumstance whose proof turns on the same evidence presented at the guilt phase. United States v. Smith, 80 F.3d 1188, 1193 (7th Cir. . Genealogy record of %1. However, the details of the killing, including the cause of death as being two gunshot wounds in the head, id. Illinois state police recovered a nine-millimeter handgun from the vehicle that ballistics tests later determined was the weapon used to kill Hillis and Beeler. Illinois state police recovered a nine-millimeter handgun from the vehicle that ballistics tests later determined was the weapon used to kill Hillis and Beeler. Wesley Crandall was a small time marihuana dealer; they went there in a pick-up truck, and Jerry Thompson took his shotgun along. The proffered conviction here does not approach the probative value required to outweigh that prejudice under Rule 403. 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. Id. The defense responded that the State was limited by Rule 404(b) to the "least prejudicial" way of proving access to the murder weapon and that Thompson could not be retried for the Crandall murder. These authorities, e.g., Maldonado v. State, 265 Ind. See also Swanson v. State, 666 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.1996) (although common-law doctrine of res gestae did not survive enactment of Indiana Rules of Evidence, facts that are part of the story of the crime are admissible if relevant within the meaning of Evidence Rule 401). Id. . Because the State alleged that Thompson stole the murder weapon from Crandall and subsequently used it to kill Hillis and Beeler, the theft of the gun was relevant to this trial. The Marine officer who was named a "person of the week" in 2009 when she became the first-ever aircraft commander of Marine One -- the presidential chopper -- has been fired from her current post . United States v. Smith, 80 F.3d 1188, 1193 (7th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). On February 14, 1991, he and Thompson went to Crandall's house to buy marijuana. 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. 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. A. Pretrial developments The admissibility of the Crandall murder evidence was contested from the outset. Without explanation, the trial court ruled that the conviction was admissible. Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind.1992). Rather, he chose to attack Percy's credibility. 338, 367-68, 417 N.E.2d 889, 905-06 (1981); Evans v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1251, 1259 (Ind.1990) (citing Brewer). As Percy waited nearby in the living room, Thompson and Crandall spoke in the kitchen. The fact that Crandall died and the fact that Thompson was convicted of his murder did not bear on any aspect of, Percy's credibility because Percy did not testify to either subject. Without stating the basis for its ruling, the trial court allowed Featheringill's testimony. ." The defense asked jurors to think about what somebody's got to gain when they testify. B. At oral argument in this Court, the State contended that these details, which were partially corroborated by other witnesses as explained below, were admissible to show Percy's credibility. The relevance and balancing issues are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 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. One of the aggravating circumstances was Thompson's prior conviction of the murder of Wesley Crandall Jr., discussed in more detail below.See footnote 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. It is always difficult saying goodbye to someone we love and cherish. 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." Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. On a prearranged signal, Percy gave the gun to Thompson, who knocked Crandall, down and stated that he thought he had broken Crandall's neck. Jerry K. Thompson was convicted of two counts of murder,1 two counts of robbery,2 and one count of carrying a handgun without a license.3 The trial court sentenced Thompson to death for the murders and imposed a term of years for the other convictions. The convictions must be reversed because a fair trial is required for every defendant, regardless of his apparent guilt or the magnitude of the crimes he may have committed. Ostrowsky, 501 F.2d at 324. 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. On February 14, 1991, he and Thompson went to Crandall's house to buy marijuana. After testifying as to the Indianapolis victims, he also testified that Crandall had died of a gunshot wound to the head. 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. 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. 1992). And, as Evans put it, if the aggravating circumstances are "prior unrelated crimes . 1993). 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. Hardin v. State, 611 N.E.2d 123, 129 (Ind.1993). She testified that in December 1990 she sold Crandall a handgun similar to the alleged murder weapon in this case. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. . You can explore additional available newsletters here. Percy's credibility was critical to the State's case. Jerry Thompson & Company, 45927 Cottonwood Hills Dr, Parker, CO (Owned by: Jerry W Thompson) holds a General A license and 1 other license according to the Douglas County license board. Their license was verified as active when we last checked. 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. Specifically, prospective jurors were informed, verbatim, of the four aggravating circumstances the State had pleaded against Thompson in the death penalty information. Thompson and Percy had the first two guns with them when they were detained by Illinois police in June 1991.See footnote 7, On cross-examination, the defense did not directly challenge Percy's account of what happened in New Castle. The State all but urged the jury to make the forbidden inference. 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. Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. When Featheringill was asked about the events in New Castle, the defense objected on hearsay grounds. He has a very deep voice, and his hairstyle is a crew cut with a single strand of hair in a ponytail. 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. 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. The proffered conviction here does not approach the probative value required to outweigh that prejudice under Rule 403. And, who does [the State] say was in Illinois in June of 1991, when [Thompson] was stopped by [Illinois police]? 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). There is enormous potential for prejudice in the guilt phase if the jury is permitted to know from the outset, in a murder case, that the defendant is a convicted killer. 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. We first examine what went on in the trial court. 1991, and ballistics tests confirmed to be the weapon used to kill Hillis and Beeler. His job was to set up mobile kitchens as the troops pushed forward into France. Thompson v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1165 (Ind.1996). Evidence of Prior Uncharged Misconduct. Accordingly, even where the defendant's involvement in a prior murder is relevant in part, the circumstances of the killing should not be presented unless they too are relevant. In June 1991, defendant Jerry Thompson and Douglas Percy were driving through Illinois and were stopped for a traffic violation. The second best result is Jerry Lamar Thompson age 60s in Portland, OR in the Eliot neighborhood. 10. . . 13. The details of the prior murder were irrelevant. It could be argued that the evidentiary errors during the guilt phase were therefore harmless. Thompson and Percy had the first two guns with them when they were detained by Illinois police in June 1991.7. For this reason, it has long been established that prospective jurors are not to know of prior convictions until the penalty phase. . In the end, an impermissible flood of damaging propensity evidence washed away Thompson's right to a fair trial. As of July 1, 2006 Home Page| Related To Andrea Thompson, Eric Thompson, Lloyd Thompson, Amanda Thompson, Brandy Thompson. Contact us. Thompson argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Columbus, Indiana gun dealer Velma Brown. . He did not break 5'10, 130 pound Wesley Crandall's neck. Indeed, the jury could have convicted Thompson on Percy's testimony alone. As the defense's opening statement put it: Who does [the State] say was with Mr. Thompson in New Castle? The trial court denied Thompson's motion, ruling that the State could show "how a weapon of the crime was obtained. Next, an evidentiary dispute arose over whether the court's pretrial ruling on, Thompson's motion in limine, allowing the State to introduce "evidence of the obtaining of the weapon," permitted the State to introduce the fact of Thompson's conviction for the Crandall murder. As Percy waited nearby in the living room, Thompson and Crandall spoke in the kitchen. 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. 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. 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. 1993). In its effort to prove guilt, the State may not flood the courtroom with unnecessary and prejudicial details of prior criminal conduct merely because some of that evidence is relevant and admissible. There is no shortage of decisions reversing convictions due to the erroneous admission of the defendant's prior criminal history, specifically prior convictions. 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. 7. 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). Illinois state police recovered a nine-millimeter handgun from the vehicle that ballistics tests later determined was the weapon used to kill Hillis and Beeler. In this review, we do not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. Percy Douglas Thompson was born circa 1889, to Henry Maxwell Thompson and Jannet Isabella Watson. 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,13 generally does not bar a retrial on the same crimes. Specifically, prospective jurors were informed, verbatim, of the four aggravating circumstances the State had pleaded against Thompson in the death penalty information. A few months earlier, Percy had been charged with altering a vehicle identification number, a felony. And, he took Wesley Crandall's guns. 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. There is no doubt that Percy's credibility was critical to the State's case. Access to the murder weapon, particularly where the evidence is circumstantial as in this case, is such a permissible purpose. It also placed Percy himself at each of these crime scenes. 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, the State does not contend that these were signature crimes. [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." Such evidence is highly prejudicial." He worked in the kitchens and as a driver and mechanic. By - June 16, 2022. Facebook gives. 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. The exception's rationale is that the crimes, or means used to commit them, were so similar and unique that it is highly probable that the same person committed all of them. Cf. On cross-examination, the defense did not directly challenge Percy's account of what happened in New Castle. Indeed, by the time of closing argument, the State referred to the discrete killings as a circle of criminal conduct for which Thompson should be held responsible. 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. What does Mr. Percy have to lose? cuando tu pareja te miente frases virginia rockhounding map doug percy jerry thompson. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident . The defense asked jurors to "think about what somebody's got to gain when they testify. . 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). In this review, we do not reweigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. at 321, were unfairly prejudicial and required a new trial. Percy did not see the location of the shot, but assumed that Thompson had shot Crandall in the head. See, e.g., Heavrin v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1075, 1083 (Ind.1996). Served in France in Second World War and managed to avoid any wounds or capture. Is proof of that conviction in New Castle, proof of his guilt in this case? This occurred with the apparent assent of all counsel. 492, 355 N.E.2d 843 (1976), however, stand for nothing more than what we have already concluded was permissible -- a showing, with reasonable factual context, of access to the murder weapon. Jerry shot the drug dealer with a shotgun, execution style. View the profiles of people named Jerry Thompson. The serial numbers on the handgun were ground off. There is nothing in the record indicating on what basis it was admitted into evidence over Thompson's objection. Thompson is currently serving a ninety-year sentence for that crime. . In a second motion in limine, Thompson responded that this evidence was not admissible under the identity exception because the Indianapolis killings and the Crandall murder were not "signature" crimes. Under these circumstances, the errors were not harmless.11 See Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795, 800-01 (Ind.1993) (holding that improperly admitted evidence of prior acts was not harmless error where the State emphasized the disputed conduct in its opening and closing arguments); James v. State, 622 N.E.2d 1303, 1309-10 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (erroneous admission of propensity evidence was not harmless due to prosecutor's steady drumbeat of references to the defendant's prior criminal record, especially in closing arguments). The email address cannot be subscribed. They have also lived in Phippsburg, ME and Beverly, MA. The fact that Crandall died and the fact that Thompson was convicted of his murder did not bear on any aspect of Percy's credibility because Percy did not testify to either subject. Id. ; see generally Robert L. Miller Jr., Courtroom Handbook on Indiana Evidence 61 (1998 ed.). 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.