State v. Perkins

Indiana Court of Appeals

State v. Perkins

444 N.E.2d 878, 1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 2559

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1983

Docket3-182A11

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 444 N.E.2d 878 (State v. Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Perkins, 444 N.E.2d 878, 1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 2559 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

GARRARD, Judge.

Terry Lee Perkins was tried by jury for robbery and was found not guilty. The state appeals a reserved question of law.

The state objected to the testimony of Dr. Periolat, an examining psychiatrist, that it was his “strong impression” that not only was Perkins telling the truth, but that “deception of any significance is outside of his capability.” The doctor also testified that his use of the word “impression” was different than an expert opinion and was “less based on firm data than an opinion would be.” He further stated that there is nothing specific about training in psychiatry that would lead one “to have a firm capability to determine whether someone was lying or not.”

The court erred in admitting the evidence. Once put in issue, a defendant may introduce character evidence to show his general reputation for truth and veracity. Kellar v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 38, 134 N.E. 881. Generally, however, evidence of specific acts is not competent to prove or disprove general reputation. McFarland v. State (1979), Ind., 390 N.E.2d 989. Similarly, an individual’s opinion based upon his own experience concerning an individual’s truthfulness is objectionable. The reason for this is that the only means of testing its truth is by cross-examination as to the particular facts on which the opinion of the witness is based. 1 People v. Van Gaasbeck (1907), 189 N.Y. 408, 82 N.E. 718.

The appeal is sustained and the judgment affirmed.

HOFFMAN, P.J., and STATON, J., concur.

1

. Not only would that create an awesome burden for the cross examiner, it would create innumerable collateral issues. 82 N.E. at 721.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GARRARD, Judge.

Terry Lee Perkins was tried by jury for robbery and was found not guilty. The state appeals a reserved question of law.

The state objected to the testimony of Dr. Periolat, an examining psychiatrist, that it was his “strong impression” that not only was Perkins telling the truth, but that “deception of any significance is outside of his capability.” The doctor also testified that his use of the word “impression” was different than an expert opinion and was “less based on firm data than an opinion would be.” He further stated that there is nothing specific about training in psychiatry that would lead one “to have a firm capability to determine whether someone was lying or not.”

The court erred in admitting the evidence. Once put in issue, a defendant may introduce character evidence to show his general reputation for truth and veracity. Kellar v. State (1922), 192 Ind. 38, 134 N.E. 881. Generally, however, evidence of specific acts is not competent to prove or disprove general reputation. McFarland v. State (1979), Ind., 390 N.E.2d 989. Similarly, an individual’s opinion based upon his own experience concerning an individual’s truthfulness is objectionable. The reason for this is that the only means of testing its truth is by cross-examination as to the particular facts on which the opinion of the witness is based. 1 People v. Van Gaasbeck (1907), 189 N.Y. 408, 82 N.E. 718.

The appeal is sustained and the judgment affirmed.

HOFFMAN, P.J., and STATON, J., concur.

1

. Not only would that create an awesome burden for the cross examiner, it would create innumerable collateral issues. 82 N.E. at 721.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 N.E.2d 878, 1983 Ind. App. LEXIS 2559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perkins-indctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack