|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
"Theft (including swindling/fraud, deception and grand larceny)" |
Sentence: |
4 days & 1 year probation |
Years Imprisoned: |
0.01 |
Year Crime: |
1996 |
Year Convicted: |
1997 |
Year Cleared: |
1998 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
Indiana |
County or Region of Crime: |
Hendricks |
City of Crime: |
|
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated |
Summary of Case: |
"Pamela A. Reed was wrongly convicted on February 18, 1997 of theft from a Wal-Mart store in Hendricks County, Indiana on November 1, 1996. The prosecution of Pamela Reed was based on her arrest for leaving the Wal-Mart store in Plainfield with about $500 in merchandise in her shopping cart that she didn't pay for. The items included a rubbermaid tote she placed in the cart, and into which she placed "an HP Scan Jet, a type of computer printer, a Back-UPS Office, ink jet labels, some computer software packages and some matchbox cars." A store surveillance officer stopped Reed in the parking lot because of the unpaid for tote, and looking inside all the other items were discovered. Reed's defense was she didn't have the requisite intent to commit theft due to transient ischemic attack (TIA) that she had as the result of a stroke in 1991 which caused her to experience confusion, aphasia and the inability to communicate verbally. The trial judge denied Reed's pretrial motion to dismiss the charge on the basis of TIA, and granted the prosecution's pre-trial motion in limine to bar Reed from introducing evidence of TIA on the basis it was bared unless " the mental condition amounted to a mental disease or defect under the insanity statute." Reed unsuccessfully opposed the prosecution's motion on the basis she wasn't alleging insanity, so "she should not be precluded from raising a defense based on a medical condition." She also argued "that she had an absolute right to present a defense to show that she did not “knowingly” or “intentionally” exert unauthorized control over Wal-Mart's property." During her trial the judge didn't allow her to introduce evidence of TIA. Reed was convicted following a jury trial, and sentenced to 4 days in jail (2 weekends) and 1 year probation. Reed appealed, arguing "that the trial court erroneously prohibited her from presenting evidence of TIA. ...her medical condition was relevant to show that her actions were not voluntary and to show that she did not have the “requisite ability to knowingly exert unauthorized control over [Wal-Mart's] property.” On April 27, 1998 a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the conviction of Pamela Reed and ordered a new trial on the basis the trial judge erroneous barred the admission of evidence supported her TIA defense. The Court's ruling stated: "As a result, we find that evidence of TIA was relevant to determine whether Reed voluntarily committed theft. ? Similarly, we conclude that to the extent this unconscious, involuntary behavior prevented her from forming the requisite intent to commit theft, it is relevant to show that she did not knowingly commit theft. ... As a result, we reverse Reed's conviction and remand to the trial court for a new trial." The Court did not evaluate the evidentiary value of the TIA evidence, only that the trial judge erred because it was relevant. The Court did not state the TIA evidence was new evidence. The Court specifically stated in its ruling's footnote 7 that the judge could evaluate the admissibility of testimony related to Reed's TIA defense -- and thus possibly exclude some testimony -- in light of its ruling. The Hendricks County District Attorney elected not to retry Reed and its motion to dismiss the charges was granted. (All quotes from: Pamela Reed v. State of Indiana, No.?32A01-9709-CR-287 (Indiana Ct. of Appeal, 4-27-1998).)" |
Conviction Caused By: |
Trial judge erroneously barred Reed from presenting evidence supporting her defense she suffered from the TIA medical condition. |
Innocence Proved By: |
"On April 27, 1998 the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Pamela Reed and ordered a new trial on the basis the trial judge erroneous barred the admission of medical evidence supported her TIA defense. The Hendricks County District Attorney elected not to retry Reed and its motion to dismiss the charges was granted." |
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
37 |
Age When Released: |
37 |
Sex: |
Female |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
White |
Information Source 1: |
"Pamela A. Reed v. State of Indiana, No.?32A01-9709-CR-287 (Indiana Ct. of Appeal, 4-27-1998) (Reversing conviction and ordering new trial based on trial judges erroneous barring of medical evidence.)" |
Information Location 1: |
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1075433.html |
Information Source 2: |
"Pamela A. Reed v. State of Indiana, No.?32A01-9709-CR-287 (Indiana Ct. of Appeal, 4-27-1998) (Reversing conviction and ordering new trial based on trial judges erroneous barring of medical evidence.)" |
Information Location 2: |
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/042703.jgb.html |
Information Source 3: |
|
Information Location 3: |
|
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org