identity exception in Indiana

2025Fairbanks v. State, 119 N.E.3d 564, 568 (Ind. 2019) (cleaned up). [42] Here, the State argued, and the trial court agreed, that the evidence relating to the Kentucky robberies was relevant under Rule 404(b)(2)’s identity exception. 9 As we have summarized: Evidence of other crimes admitted under the identity exception [is] generally evaluated based upon whether such crimes are “‘signature’ crimes with a common modus operandi.” Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 234 (Ind. 1997).

2019Here, the trial court admitted Hughes’s prior convictions as proof of identity and plan. [18] The identity exception was carved out primarily for crimes “so nearly identical that the modus operandi is virtually a ‘signature.’” Allen v. State, 720 N.E.2d 707, 711 (Ind. 1999) (citing Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 234 (Ind. 1997)).

2025The rationale behind this exception “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.” Id. (citing Lockhart v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1093, 1097 (Ind. 1993)).

2019In considering whether identity evidence constitutes a signature crime, the focus is on whether “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.” Thompson, 690 N.E.2d at 234 (citing Lockhart v. State, 609 N.E.2d 1093, 1097 (Ind. 1993)). “[T]he repeated commission of similar crimes is not enough to qualify for the exception to the general rule.

2019Here, the trial court admitted Hughes’s prior convictions as proof of identity and plan. [18] The identity exception was carved out primarily for crimes “so nearly identical that the modus operandi is virtually a ‘signature.’” Allen v. State, 720 N.E.2d 707, 711 (Ind. 1999) (citing Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 234 (Ind. 1997)).

2015See Allen, 720 N.E.2d at 712 (concluding that even if the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of another crime under the identity exception in Evidence Rule 404(b), the error was harmless in light of the DNA evidence linking Allen to the crime he was on trial for).

2025Fairbanks v. State, 119 N.E.3d 564, 568 (Ind. 2019) (cleaned up). [42] Here, the State argued, and the trial court agreed, that the evidence relating to the Kentucky robberies was relevant under Rule 404(b)(2)’s identity exception. 9 As we have summarized: Evidence of other crimes admitted under the identity exception [is] generally evaluated based upon whether such crimes are “‘signature’ crimes with a common modus operandi.” Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 234 (Ind. 1997).

2016Bishop v. State, 40 N.E.3d 935, 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.

2015See Browning v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1222, 1225 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (in a case for the attempted rape of Anderson University student A.B., this Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting other bad acts of the defendant— mostly masturbation and exposing himself — involving other Anderson University students because “[although there are certainly striking similarities among the ‘other’ incidents in question, the same cannot be said when comparing those incidents with the attack upon A.B.

2014See Hicks v. State, 690 N.E.2d 215, 221 (Ind. 1997).

2013See Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224, 234 (Ind. 1997) (“The identity 6 exception to the general prohibition on propensity evidence is crafted primarily for ‘signature’ crimes with a common modus operandi.”); Davis v. State, 598 N.E.2d 1041, 1048 (Ind. 1992) (noting that the “common scheme or plan exception” “permits proof of identity by showing the defendant committed other crimes with identical modus operandi.”).

2013Intent In Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795, 799 (Ind.1993), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the intent exception in Evidence Rule 404(b) will be available when a defendant goes beyond merely denying the charged culpability and affirmatively presents a claim of particular contrary intent.

2011See Purvis v. State, 829 N.E.2d 572, 587 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (holding that evidence was admissible pursuant to the identity exception of Evidence Rule 404(b) and presuming that the court, as trier of fact, could limit this evidence to its permissible purpose), trans. denied, cert, denied.