Baker v. State

The state did not introduce improper character evidence when cross-examining the defendant because the questioning was not intended to elicit that the defendant had been incarcerated.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Donald Baker guilty on two counts of armed robbery and one count of theft by receiving stolen property.1 Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Baker appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, that trial court erred in allowing improper character evidence, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Having reviewed these claims, we affirm. Construing the evidence presented in Baker’s second trial in favor of the verdict,2 the record reveals that on February 23, 2005, as Michael Brawner stopped at a stop sign, an unfamiliar white car that had been following him pulled around and blocked him in. The car had a colorful Kentucky vehicle tag. A masked man jumped out of the car with a shotgun, ordered Brawner to the ground, and told him “don’t look.” A second man got out of the car and ordered Brawner to get in the trunk of the car. The two men took Brawner’s money and identification. When a van approached, the men fled, taking Brawner’s car. Brawner ran to a nearby house where he called police, who eventually found his car, which had been damaged and was missing a wheel, a CD player, a DVD player, a stereo, and several speakers.

On the same night that Brawner was robbed, Shirley Pittman arrived home from a business dinner. A masked gunman approached her SUV and ordered her out, threatening to kill her. After taking Pittman’s keys, the gunman ordered Pittman to the ground and drove away in her SUV. As the gunman drove away, a second man waiting in a white car told Pittman “if you look, we’re going to kill you.” A tracking device in Pittman’s SUV alerted police as to its location, and they returned it to Pittman the next day. At trial, Pittman identified Baker in court as the masked gunman. She testified that she could see the gunman’s eyes and mouth during the robbery.

Baker v. State

The state did not introduce improper character evidence when cross-examining the defendant because the questioning was not intended to elicit that the defendant had been incarcerated.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report