# Stone v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · April 10, 1989 · 536 N.E.2d 534

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517739

## Case

- **Full name:** Phillip M. STONE, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 10, 1989
- **Citations:** 536 N.E.2d 534; 1989 Ind. App. LEXIS 250; 1989 WL 34959
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garrard
- **Judges:** Conover, Miller, Garrard
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517739

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding “rampant repetition” of the victim’s testimony because between the five witnesses and the victim, the victim’s version of the alleged molestation was presented to the jury a total of seven times; as a result, “the line between [the victim’s] credibility became increasi…

## Opinion text

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
In Patterson v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 55 , 324 N.E.2d 482 our Supreme Court embarked upon a worthy experiment to aid the truthfinding process. In operation the rule there announced has had a rather checkered experience because of the ease of abusing it. See, e.g., Lewis v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 1125 ; Stone v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 672 , 377 N.E.2d 1372 ; Samuels v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 676 , 372 N.E.2d 1186 . Two recent decisions suggest its practical impact may be to provide a tool for the prosecution that will be denied to the defense. See Doemer v. State (1986), Ind., 500 N.E.2d 1178 and Gaunt v. State (1983), Ind., 457 N.E.2d 211 . Perhaps it is time to reevaluate whether the rule has properly performed its function or whether a different rule such as that provided in § 801(d)(1)(B) of the federal rules might better serve Indiana.
Secondly, I recognize that the fact a child witness tells a number of people of his or her abuse may demonstrate that the child is crying out for help. Even so the verbatim repetition of all those accounts, as occurred here, can be highly prejudicial. I agree with the majority that it was an abuse of discretion prejudicial to defendant to permit those repeated accounts over proper objection.
I therefore concur in the result reached.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517739. Public record. Not legal advice.