Lannan v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana · 1992 · Evidence

600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. 1992)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(b)other bad actspropensity ruledepraved sexual instinctchild molestinguncharged misconductres gestae

Facts

Lannan was charged with one count of child molesting based on an allegation that on June 17, 1989, he had sexual intercourse with fourteen-year-old V.E. At trial, V.E. and her cousin T.W. testified about the charged bedroom incident, and T.W. also described Lannan's fondling her during that episode. The jury also heard testimony about an earlier incident in Lannan's truck in which he allegedly fondled both girls, and V.E. testified about at least three later instances of intercourse with Lannan. The trial court admitted the uncharged-act evidence under Indiana's depraved sexual instinct exception.

Issue

Whether Indiana should continue to recognize the depraved sexual instinct exception permitting evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct in sex-crime prosecutions, or instead evaluate such evidence under Rule 404(b). If the exception should be abandoned, the further question was whether admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence in Lannan's trial required reversal.

Rule

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible to prove a person's character in order to show action in conformity therewith, but it may be admitted for other purposes such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Indiana's depraved sexual instinct exception is abolished, and evidence of prior sexual misconduct may no longer be admitted merely to show propensity; instead, admissibility must be tested under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), adopted in its entirety effective from the date of this decision.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fort Wayne, Marcus Velez is tried for molesting a 13-year-old neighbor during a sleepover. The prosecutor offers testimony that Marcus had touched two other children inappropriately eight years earlier, arguing that the evidence shows he has a sexual interest in children and therefore likely committed the charged offense.

Should the trial court admit the earlier-touching evidence on that theory?

Explanation. The governing rule is that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is inadmissible when offered only to prove character in order to show action in conformity with that character. The decision abolishes the former sexual-propensity exception and requires analysis under Rule 404(b). Prior sexual misconduct is not admissible merely to show that the defendant has a depraved disposition or sexual propensity.