Williams v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
681 N.E.2d 195 (1997)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Adrian Williams and Antoine Edmondson (defendants) were charged with attempted sex crimes and false imprisonment. At trial, the victim testified that she had asked two strangers, Williams and Edmondson, for a ride home after she finished work as a topless dancer. Instead of taking the victim home, Williams pulled into an alley. The victim tried to escape the car and run away, but Edmondson pulled her back into the car by her arm. Williams then drove to a dark parking lot, and both men ordered the victim to engage in sexual acts with them. Edmondson set a gun down on an arm rest while he pulled off the victim’s clothing. At that point, the victim grabbed the gun and broke free, shooting Edmondson in the jaw as she ran away. In contrast to the victim’s testimony, Williams and Edmondson testified that the victim had agreed to exchange sexual acts for drugs. To support their version of events, the men asked to introduce evidence of previous incidents in which the victim had engaged in prostitution for drugs, but the trial court excluded the evidence. Williams was convicted and appealed. The appellate court vacated the conviction, finding that evidence of the victim’s previous prostitution should have been admitted. The case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Boehm, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.