The Law Of Incredible Dubiosity

The Indiana Supreme Court reversed its Court of Appeals and reinstated the conviction of a criminal defendant charged with burglary of a Dollar General.

The court found that the prosecution did not knowingly use perjured testimony. Rather, the key witness had changed her testimony at trial from assertions made at her plea proceeding.

The inconsistencies were disclosed and exploited by the defense.

Further, with respect to the defense’s claim of “incredible dubiosity”

the defendant seeks application of Indiana’s rule of incredible dubiosity. He alleges that his conviction should be vacated because [witness] Greenlee’s testimony as a State witness was so dubious and contrary to the facts that it must be disregarded, leaving insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction…

In essence, the defendant asserts that because the store video images show that the burglar was Caucasian, Greenlee’s testimony identifying the burglar as the defendant, an African American, is incredibly dubious, requiring that his conviction be vacated. From testimony at trial and statements of the defendant’s counsel at trial, we understand that Greenlee is Caucasian and the defendant is African-American.

The court

We recently summarized that, to warrant application of the incredible dubiosity rule, there must be: “1) a sole testifying witness; 2) testimony that is inherently contradictory, equivocal, or the result of coercion; and 3) a complete absence of circumstantial evidence.”

we find as to the first factor that, while Greenlee was not the sole testifying witness, the testimony of the two other witnesses would have been an insufficient basis for the jury to find the defendant guilty. The second and third factors, however, are not satisfied. While at variance with prior statements or arguably with the video images, Greenlee’s trial testimony was not internally contradictory. And there was not a complete absence of circumstantial evidence. “In a case where there is circumstantial evidence of an individual’s guilt, ‘reliance on the incredible dubiosity rule is misplaced.'” Id. at 759 (quoting Majors v. State, 748 N.E.2d 365, 367 (Ind. 2001)). The incredible dubiosity doctrine does not warrant reversal of the defendant’s conviction in this case.

(Mike Frisch)