Mistaken identity defense: In general
• A defendant may, of course, establish his innocence by showing that some other person or persons committed the crime charged, instead of himself.
Fortson v. State, 379 N.E.2d 147, 171 (Ind. 1978)(citing Stout v. State, 92 N.E. 161, 162 (Ind. 1910))
Mistaken identity defense: Admissibility of evidence
• “[A] defendant has a right to present evidence tending to show that someone other than the accused committed the charged crime.”
Pitts v. State, 904 N.E.2d 313, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied(quoting Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied)
Hyser v. State, 996 N.E.2d 443, 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), reh’g denied(citing Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349, 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied)
See Bryant v. State, 802 N.E.2d 486, 495 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied(citing Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“[A] defendant has the right to present evidence that another person committed the crime for which the defendant is charged.”)
• [O]ur review is guided by the Indiana Rules of Evidence . . . . Evidence is relevant when it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime logically makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime, and thus meets the definition of relevance in Rule 401.
Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 389 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(quoting Ind. Evidence Rule 401)
See Pitts v. State, 904 N.E.2d 313, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied(quoting Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502, 504 (Ind. 2001))(“The Indiana Supreme Court has held that ‘evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime logically makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime, and thus meets the definition of Rule 401.’”)
See also Mathis v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1283, 1286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied(citing Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 389 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“Evidence tending to show that someone else committed the crime in question meets this standard because, logically, such evidence makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime.”)
• “Evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime logically makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime, and thus meets the definition of relevance in Rule 401.” Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 389 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied. However, under Evidence Rule 403, the evidence may be excluded if its probative value is out-weighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or the potential to mislead the jury. Pelley v. State, 901 N.E.2d 494, 504 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied.
McGaha v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1050, 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied
• Before evidence of a third party is admissible, the defendant must show some connection between the third party and the crime.
McGaha v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1050, 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied(citing Pelley v. State, 901 N.E.2d 494, 504 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied)
SODDI defense: In general
• The some-other-dude-did-it defense; a claim that somebody else committed a crime, usu[ally] made by a criminal defendant who cannot identify the third party.
Black’s Law Dictionary ? (9th ed. 2009)
• When defense counsel invites the jury to conclude that the defendant is not guilty because he did not actually do the physical acts charged, or at least that the government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did, defense counsel will almost inevitably have to present at least some suggestion as to who might have done the acts instead. The typical juror will be less likely to develop reasonable doubts in the abstract, than if the defense is able to sketch out some “reasonable” alternative theory that will permit jurors to satisfy their natural human curiosity about dramatic events, and also their sense that real events must have some real-life explanation. This approach is referred to colloquially as presenting the “SODDI” defense—“Some Other Dude Did It.”
W. William Hodes, Seeking the Truth Versus Telling the Truth at the Boundaries of the Law: Misdirection, Lying, and “Lying with an Explanation”, 44 S. Tex. L. Rev. 53, 59 n.18 (2002)
• As its moniker (“some other dude”) implies, the SODDI defense usually attributes the commission of the crime to some unknown perpetrator.
Susan W. Brenner et al., The Trojan Horse Defense in Cyber Crimes, 21 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 1, 9 (2004)
• The “SODDI” defense is rarely successful (except on television), because competent prosecutors who have marshaled solid evidence can usually ridicule the strained inferences offered by the defense, and argue that the simple explanation—that “the defendant dude did it”—cannot reasonably be called into question.
W. William Hodes, Seeking the Truth Versus Telling the Truth at the Boundaries of the Law: Misdirection, Lying, and “Lying with an Explanation”, 44 S. Tex. L. Rev. 53, 59 n.18 (2002)