door refers principle in Indiana

2017“Opening the door refers to the principle that where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact, the opposing party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though the rebuttal evidence otherwise would have been inadmissible.” Id. at n.4; see also Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 130 (Ind. 2009) (“The door may be opened when the trier of fact has been left with a false or misleading impression of the facts.”).

2015Sampson, 38 N.E.3d at 991-92 . 2 [16] The Sampson opinion also contains the following observation as to what constitutes “opening the door” to otherwise inadmissible vouching evidence: “Opening the door refers to the principle that where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact, the opposing party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though the rebuttal evidence, otherwise would have been inadmissible.” Id. at 992 n. 4. “ ‘The door may be opened when the trier of fact ha's been left with a false or misleading impression of the facts.’.” - Id. (qu

2026Evidence that opens the door “must leave the trier of fact with a false or misleading impression of the facts related.” Wilder v. State, 91 N.E.3d 1016, 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

2020The State responds that Garcia- Berrios opened the door as part of his defense strategy and cannot show fundamental error. [13] “Opening the door refers to the principle that where one party introduces evidence of a particular fact, the opposing party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though the rebuttal evidence otherwise would have been inadmissible.” Wilder v. State, 91 N.E.3d 1016, 1023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018 ) (quoting Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 , 992 n.4 (Ind. 2015)).

2018Evidence that opens the door “must leave the trier of fact with a false or misleading impression of the facts related.” Cameron v. State, 22 N.E.3d 588, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quotation omitted).

2018“An opening statement is not evidence to be Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1280 | December 31, 2018 Page 12 of 23 considered by the jury.” Doe v. State, 451 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). [29] When testifying about a person’s reputation for truthfulness, the proponent of the reputation evidence must identify a readily definable community that has an adequate basis to form an opinion and that the person testifying to the person’s reputation must have sufficient contact with that community to qualify as knowledgeable of the general reputation of the person whos

2017Thus, “‘once a child’s credibility is called into question proper expert testimony may be appropriate.’” Sampson, 38 N.E.3d at 992 (quoting Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490, 499 (Ind. 1995)).

2015Although this court has generally stated that, “when a defendant interjects an issue in a trial, he opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence,” we also have emphasized, “evidence relied upon to open the door must leave the trier of fact with a false or misleading impression of *633 the facts related.” Beauchamp v. State, 788 N.E.2d 881, 896 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). [17] In Steward, relied upon by thé Sampson opinion, the court held that expert testimony regarding “child sexual abuse syndrome” is inadmissible unless a defendant has first called a child’s credibility into question.