Sixth Amendment – Excluded Evidence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: James E. Hinkle v.  Ron Neal, Warden

Case No.: 21‐2067

Officials: HAMILTON, BRENNAN, and JACKSON‐AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges

Focus: Sixth Amendment – Excluded Evidence

James Hinkle is serving a 42‐year prison sentence after an Indiana jury convicted him of sexually molesting his minor nephew, S.B., who testified at trial. On appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Hinkle argues his constitutional right to present a complete defense was violated when the state trial court excluded evidence of S.B.’s drug use. Hinkle’s counsel opposed a motion to exclude evidence of S.B.’s drug use, arguing the evidence was relevant to show S.B.’s motive to fabricate allegations. The court ruled that it would not allow evidence of S.B.’s drug use except to show that it interfered with his ability to recall relevant events. The Court of Appeals of Indiana did not unreasonably apply federal constitutional law in upholding the exclusion of that evidence.

Affirmed

Decided 10/13/22

Full Text