Case Title: Jethroe v. State

Citation: 319 N.E.2d 133

Docket Number: 1173S229

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
319 N.E.2d 133 (1974)
James T. JETHROE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1173S229.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
November 19, 1974.
Rehearing Denied February 4, 1975.
*135 George A. Purvis, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
DeBRULER, Justice.
Appellant, James T. Jethroe, was indicted for the crime of First Degree Murder. (I.C. 1971, XX-XX-X-X, being Burns § 10-3401). After a trial by jury in the Marion Criminal Court, Judge Harold Kohlmeyer presiding, he was convicted of the crime of Second Degree Murder (I.C. 1971, XX-X-XX-X, being Burns § 10-3404). Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has perfected an appeal to this Court on three grounds: (1) The verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence; (2) The trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a daughter of the deceased concerning a telephone conversation between deceased and appellant's mother; (3) The trial court erred in admitting testimony and a demonstration by appellant concerning the loading, unloading and reloading of a shotgun.
Certain evidence at the trial was introduced without contradiction. Appellant had lived in the same house as LaDonna Roundtree, the deceased, and her children for about two years. Jethroe and LaDonna quarreled sometimes, and Jethroe had struck her on several occasions. The deceased was killed on August 2nd, by a shot in the head from a shotgun held by appellant. One of the deceased's daughters was present when the shooting occurred. Appellant admitted to the man whom he asked to telephone the police and to the officer who answered the call that he was the person who had killed LaDonna.
The only eye-witness and the appellant presented two different explanations of the events leading up to the shooting. Diane Roundtree, the fourteen year old daughter of the deceased, testified:
The appellant testified about the same time period:
As an appellate court, we must not weigh the evidence presented to the trial court or decide questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses. It is the jury who sees and hears the witnesses and who can best determine which evidence is credible and most convincing. We must accept the evidence which supports the jury's verdict and determine whether that evidence, along with the reasonable inferences a jury might draw from it, is of sufficient probative value to establish all the necessary elements of the offense charged. Lynch v. State (1974), Ind., 316 N.E.2d 372.
A verdict of Second Degree Murder requires a finding that defendant "purposely and maliciously, but without premeditation" killed a human being. Burns § 10-3404, supra. Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. Prior to considering this question we turn to appellant's contentions that evidence was erroneously admitted at trial.
His first contention is that the testimony of Diane Roundtree, age fourteen, ought not to be admitted because she is forgetful and because her testimony may have been influenced by deceased's mother. It is well established that any person ten years of age or older is competent to testify in a criminal case. I.C. 1971, XX-X-XX-X, being Burns § 9-1603, with reference to I.C. 1971, XX-X-XX-X, being Burns § 2-1714. Appellant had the burden of establishing that Diane was not competent. Wedmore v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d 649. Her credibility was to be determined by the jury.
Appellant's second argument is that the admission of the testimony of LaBerta Roundtree, another daughter of deceased, *137 was improper. This witness testified about events occurring on the day of the fatal shot:
On appeal, counsel for appellant argues that this testimony was inadmissible as hearsay. However, counsel for the State contends that the testimony was not hearsay because it was presented for the purpose of establishing the fact that deceased was talking to appellant's mother and that appellant was present and heard the conversation.
Trial counsel for appellant did not object to the question or deceased's statement on hearsay grounds. His objection on the ground that the witness had not positively identified the person to whom the deceased was speaking on the phone was not pertinent in this context. The witness was present and heard the statements first hand, so that the fact that the speaker was making the statements into the telephone was incidental. Contrast cases where the identity of the person on the phone is crucial. United States v. Platt, 435 F.2d 220 (7th Cir.1970); United States v. Hickman, 426 F.2d 515 (7th Cir.1970). Here a correct understanding of the statements did not depend upon knowing who was on the other end of the line.
Appellant's failure to present a hearsay objection was material, because his objection did not give the trial court notice of the real weakness of the testimony. The failure to object on a specific ground is generally considered a waiver of the right to rely on such ground on appeal *138 from the trial court's ruling on the objection. Jones v. State (1973), Ind., 296 N.E.2d 407, 409-410; Dudley Sports Co. v. Schmitt (1972), Ind. App., 279 N.E.2d 266, 279. An exception to this requirement of specificity exists where the objection is made under such circumstances that it is clear that the trial judge considered the unspecified ground in making his ruling. Such an exception does not obtain here. The hearsay ground should be considered waived; however, the State has not urged waiver in its brief, and therefore we choose not to rely upon it.
In its brief the State raises as an answer to the hearsay claim, that the testimony was presented at trial for a limited purpose only. When as here the jury received no limiting instruction, the assumption must be that the jury considered the testimony as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted in that testimony. Consequently, counsel for the State cannot assert a limited use of the telephone conversation at the appellate level
Hearsay evidence is testimony by a witness in court relative to an extrajudicial declaration by another, which is offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted by the declarant. The value of the witness' statement rests on the credibility of the declarant, and the declarant is not in court available for cross examination. Harvey v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 473, 476, 269 N.E.2d 759, 760.
Deceased's conversation was introduced to show the truth of her assertion that appellant had threatened her. Nevertheless, it was admissible, because of the hearsay exception for admissions. An admission is an out-of-court statement made by a party and introduced in court by a party opponent. 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1048 (Chad.Rev. 1972). Obviously, the party is not denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, when the out-of-court declarant was himself.
It is the admissions exception which would have allowed into evidence Jethroe's alleged threat to LaDonna, if the witness had heard him threaten her. In the case before us, the witness LaBerta did not hear Jethroe threaten LaDonna. However, LaBerta testified that she was present when Jethroe overheard the deceased relate his threats over the phone. LaBerta testified that she saw Jethroe "snatch" the phone from the deceased and tell the person on the line not to come over to their house. LaBerta's testimony about the deceased's statement, when considered alone, was hearsay and properly would be excluded. But because defendant was present at the time the statement was made, and his statement and conduct were equivocal, the accusation and the reply were admissible as a tacit or adoptive admission. McCormick, Evidence §§ 270, 161 (2d ed. 1972); 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1071 (Chad.Rev. 1972).
In Diamond v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 285, 144 N.E. 466, several witnesses heard defendant's dying wife repeatedly accuse him of killing her. He denied her accusations and asked her to accuse another person; yet once he said that he did not mean to kill her. Defendant insisted that the testimony of the witnesses was inadmissible hearsay. The court determined:
*139 Because defendant's conduct was not an unequivocal denial of his wife's accusations, her statements were admissible with his replies and conduct as an admission. The Diamond case provides the clearest example of inadmissible hearsay statements which are inextricably related to defendant's equivocal replies and become admissible as part of an admission.
In Robinson v. State (1974), Ind. App., 309 N.E.2d 833, the witness had heard voices which he identified as those of defendant's mother and defendant in the following exchange:
The Court explained:
An equivocal response renders the charge and the response admissible. The Court interpreted "shut up" to be equivocal.
The Court went on to discuss the significance of admitting the evidence:
The defendant should ask for instructions to the effect that, if the jury finds defendant's response to be a denial, they should ignore the testimony entirely.
This exception to the hearsay rule is limited to testimony about conversations heard by the witness which involved admissions or equivocal answers by defendant. The witness who is testifying must have seen or heard the defendant's reaction to the hearsay accusations himself. In Tenta v. Guraly (1966), 140 Ind. App. 160, 221 N.E.2d 577, the witness testified that deceased had said that appellant said that the contract between witness and the deceased was unimportant. The witness had not heard appellant say that, and appellant was not present when the deceased told the witness. The testimony was inadmissible because (1) witness lacked personal knowledge of appellant's declaration that the contract was unimportant, and (2) the later conversation incorporating this declaration was not an admission, since defendant was not present to equivocate or admit her statement.
The circumstances in Harvey v. State, supra, were similar. Witness testified that a third party had told him that defendant had admitted that he might have murdered the deceased. Under the special exception for conversations involving defendant's admissions or equivocations, the third party would have been allowed to testify about the content of the conversation which he had overheard. However, the witness could not testify under that exception because he never saw or heard defendant make any admissions or equivocations. Witness and defendant were not together (1) when defendant made his admission in the first place, or (2) when the third party related this earlier incident to the witness.
In the case before us, appellant and witness were present together at the time appellant heard and equivocally reacted to deceased's statements, so that there was no error in admitting this evidence.
Appellant argues that that conversation tended to show malice and premeditation, *140 whereas, he says, the record indicates self-defense or an act in a sudden heat. However, the jury did not find appellant guilty of first degree murder, that is, the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant's act was premeditated. A verdict of Second Degree Murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of malice and purpose. We believe that the other evidence of threats, beatings, and a first shot into the wall was sufficient for the jury to find malice and purpose.
Appellant's final contention is that his demonstration of the loading, unloading, and reloading of his shotgun at the State's request was not relevant to the issues and served only to excite the minds and inflame the passions of the jury.
The State asked on cross-examination:
Defendant's counsel objected:
The State could introduce into evidence the shotgun which killed the deceased. On direct, appellant's counsel had asked appellant to show the jury how he had held the shotgun for the first shot and how the gun was positioned for the second shot. From the record, it appears that appellant did so without holding the shotgun itself. The State then asked appellant to demonstrate with the shotgun how it was loaded and unloaded, down in front of the jury. It is not clear what the jury was to learn from this experiment. The parties agreed that the appellant had loaded and reloaded the shotgun in a short period of time. Only because the defense had had appellant act out his use of the gun in order to show that the second shot was accidental, will we condone the State's requiring the appellant to handle the weapon in front of the jury.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
ARTERBURN, C.J., and GIVAN, HUNTER and PRENTICE, JJ., concur.