larger instruction in Indiana

2017As our Supreme Court has noted, remoteness in time does not render 404(b) evidence per se inadmissible; “[r]ather, the timing and similarity of the incidents are factors in the larger inquiry into whether the incidents were relevant to a matter in issue.” Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 222 (Ind. 1997) (finding no error in the admission of evidence at the defendant’s murder trial that he had beaten the victim more than three years earlier).

2015Both “the timing and similarity of the incidents are factors in the larger inquiry into whether the incidents were relevant to a matter in issue.” Hicks, 690 N.E.2d at 222 . [42] Here, the evidence elicited by the State related to the Cullens shooting included that Angela Allen saw Bishop on the evening of August 31, 2012, the night before Shabazz was discovered shot at his home, and that Bishop gave her $300 and stated that “he was going to, uh, go find Will or talk to Will,” whom she knew through Bishop.

2025Bishop v. State, 40 N.E.3d 935, 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (emphases added), trans. denied. [43] Jones argues that the evidence relating to the Kentucky robberies was not admissible under Rule 404(b)(2)’s identity exception because there was nothing about the manner in which any of the instant robberies occurred that rose to the level of a “signature crime.” See Appellant’s Br. at 36-40.

2020We now proceed to the merits of Wadle’s claim. 33For several years after its ratification and adoption, Indiana’s appellate courts consistently declined to exercise their article 7 authority, expressing the “view that this power appears to go beyond that power which [we had] always possessed.” See Parker v. State, 265 Ind. 595, 604 , 358 N.E.2d 110, 114 (1976).

2020We now proceed to the merits of Wadle’s claim. 33For several years after its ratification and adoption, Indiana’s appellate courts consistently declined to exercise their article 7 authority, expressing the “view that this power appears to go beyond that power which [we had] always possessed.” See Parker v. State, 265 Ind. 595, 604 , 358 N.E.2d 110, 114 (1976).