Lannan v. State
600 N.E.2d 1334 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of prior uncharged sexual misconduct is not admissible under the 'depraved sexual instinct' exception to show a defendant's propensity to commit the charged crime; its admissibility is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), which allows such evidence only for other purposes such as proving motive, intent, plan, or identity.
Facts:
- Donald Lannan was at a house where V.E., age 14, and her cousin, T.W., were sharing a bedroom for the night.
- Lannan entered the bedroom and asked T.W. to 'mess around with him,' but she refused.
- Lannan then proceeded to have sexual intercourse with V.E., while T.W. witnessed the event and heard V.E. tell Lannan to stop.
- In a separate incident during the summer of the previous year, Lannan had allegedly fondled both V.E. and T.W. in his truck.
- On at least three other occasions after the charged incident, Lannan had intercourse with V.E. at various locations.
- Approximately one year after the charged incident, Lannan drove to the house where the event occurred and shouted a threat to repeat the act.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Lannan was charged with one count of child molesting in an Indiana trial court.
- At trial, over Lannan's objection, the court admitted testimony about other uncharged instances of sexual misconduct under the 'depraved sexual instinct' exception.
- A jury found Lannan guilty as charged.
- Lannan appealed his conviction, which was presumably affirmed by an intermediate appellate court.
- Lannan filed a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, asking it to abandon the 'depraved sexual instinct' rule.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to reexamine the exception.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should Indiana abandon its 'depraved sexual instinct' evidentiary exception, which allows the admission of prior uncharged sexual misconduct to show propensity, and instead adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as the standard for admitting such evidence in sex crime prosecutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard, C.J.
Yes. The 'depraved sexual instinct' exception is abandoned, and Indiana hereby adopts Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as the governing standard for the admissibility of prior misconduct evidence. The traditional rationales for the exception are no longer compelling. The 'recidivism rationale' is inconsistent, as other crimes with high recidivism rates (e.g., drug offenses) do not have a similar exception to the rule against propensity evidence. The 'bolstering rationale,' which assumes accusations of child molestation seem improbable standing alone, is undermined by the unfortunate reality that such accusations are no longer considered improbable in modern society. The old exception was too open-ended and prejudicial, whereas Rule 404(b) provides a more structured and principled analysis, allowing evidence of prior acts for specific, non-propensity purposes such as proof of motive, intent, plan, identity, or absence of mistake. While some evidence against Lannan was improperly admitted under this new standard, the error was harmless due to other overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
Concurring - Givan, J.
This opinion concurs in the result of affirming the conviction but strongly disagrees with the abolition of the 'depraved sexual instinct' rule. The reasons for the rule's adoption, particularly the necessity to protect children and lend credibility to a child victim's testimony in light of the heinous nature of the crime, remain valid. A jury is entitled to know about a defendant's history of sexually deviant conduct in such cases. The abrogation of this rule represents an erosion, however small, of the protection afforded to children and is therefore a mistake.
Analysis:
This decision represents a major shift in Indiana evidence law, aligning the state with the federal rules and the majority of other jurisdictions by abrogating a long-standing, state-specific exception. It requires prosecutors in sex crime cases to articulate a specific, non-propensity purpose under the Rule 404(b) framework to admit evidence of a defendant's prior misconduct. This change elevates the standard for admissibility, likely leading to more rigorous pre-trial scrutiny of such evidence and forcing the state to build cases without relying on general character evidence to prove propensity.
