Wash v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
408 N.E.2d 634 (1980)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A jury convicted Patrick Wash (defendant) of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. Wash entered Alyse LaMonte’s apartment and hid in her bedroom closet. When LaMonte returned home, Wash flashed the knife, demanded that LaMonte undress, and cut LaMonte’s breast. LaMonte ran to a neighbor’s apartment and saw Wash leave her apartment with her purse. LaMonte returned to her apartment for the first time about one week after the attack and found a red and blue stocking cap in her bedroom closet that Wash had worn during the robbery. Although LaMonte notified the police immediately about the cap, the police did not retrieve it for nearly two weeks. At trial, LaMonte identified the cap. The trial judge admitted the cap as evidence, overruling Wash’s objection that the cap could have been tampered with or substituted in the week between the robbery and LaMonte’s discovery of the cap. Wash appealed, arguing, among other issues, that the government (plaintiff) failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the cap. Wash renewed his chain-of-custody argument at trial and raised an additional argument that the government had failed to establish the cap’s chain of custody from the time police seized it from LaMonte to the time the government introduced it as evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Staton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
