## Facts

- David R. Camm was charged with murdering his wife and two children at their home in Georgetown, Indiana.
- Camm was convicted in 2002; the conviction was reversed on appeal due to improper admission of character evidence concerning extramarital affairs under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b).
- After reinvestigation, police connected Charles Boney to the scene through DNA on a sweatshirt found under one child and a palm print at the scene; Boney gave inconsistent accounts and later claimed he supplied a gun to Camm and was present during the killings.
- Following venue and refiling disputes, Camm was retried in Warrick County and, in 2006, again convicted of three counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
- The State’s second-trial evidence largely tracked the first trial (forensic and circumstantial evidence and alleged jailhouse confessions) and added evidence suggesting Camm molested his daughter as a motive.
- The State also introduced testimony from a friend of the victim that, on the morning of the murders, the victim said she expected Camm to be home between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.; the State used this to attack Camm’s basketball-alibi timing.
- Camm appealed, challenging, among other things, the admission of the molestation evidence and the victim’s out-of-court statement.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) by admitting speculative and highly prejudicial evidence implying Camm molested his daughter as proof of motive.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting hearsay testimony that the victim expected Camm to return home between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.
3. Whether any evidentiary errors were harmless in light of the remaining evidence.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed Camm’s three murder convictions, vacated the life-without-parole sentence, and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the molestation-motive evidence was improperly admitted because it lacked adequate factual support and created a substantial danger of unfair prejudice.
- The court held the victim’s statement about when she expected Camm home was inadmissible hearsay and did not fall within a recognized exception.
- The court concluded these errors were not harmless because they materially affected the State’s motive narrative and undermined the defense alibi.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) bars use of other-acts evidence to prove character or propensity; when offered to show motive, it must be supported by sufficient evidence and still satisfy limits on unfair prejudice.
- Allegations of child molestation present an acute risk of unfair prejudice; speculative accusations lacking an adequate evidentiary foundation should not be admitted as motive evidence.
- Out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible hearsay absent an applicable exception.
- A victim’s statement reflecting an expectation about another person’s future conduct is not automatically admissible under a state-of-mind theory when it functions primarily to prove that other person’s actions.
- Reversal is required when erroneously admitted evidence likely had a substantial influence on the verdict, particularly where it supplies a powerful motive theory or directly attacks a central defense such as an alibi.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the prosecution relied on improperly admitted, highly prejudicial 404(b) motive evidence and inadmissible hearsay used to undermine the defendant’s alibi, and the combined errors could not be treated as harmless.


Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 2009)