Supreme Court of Indiana
600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. 1992)
Donald Lannan (defendant) was charged with molesting a young girl. At his trial, the prosecution presented testimony from another girl who said that Lannan molested her in the past. The prosecution also presented testimony from the victim concerning other instances when Lannan molested her for which Lannan was not charged. A jury convicted Lannan of molestation. Lannan petitioned the Supreme Court for transfer and asked the court to abandon the “depraved sexual instinct” exception to the rule excluding character evidence. This exception allows evidence of other actions of sexual molestation to be admitted.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Shephard, C.J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Givan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.