Opinion ID: 2194932
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ill Dec.edent's Statement as Hearsay

Text: At trial, Ross called Sherry Williams to testify on his behalf. Ross' attorney asked the witness whether she had a telephone conversation with Paula during August or September of 1994 in which she threatened to kill her husband. The State objected on grounds that the statements were hearsay and irrelevant. The court sustained the objection. Defense counsel claimed the testimony was admissible under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(3), saying it would be describing or could describe the decedent's intent, plan, motive[,] . . . design, or mental feeling at that time. . . . (R. at 1472-73.) Counsel also claimed the evidence was relevant because it could show possession of a weapon by the decedent. Counsel then made an offer of proof to the effect that Williams would have testified that during August or September 1994, she had a telephone conversation with Paula in which Paula stated she had filed a citation against the defendant, they were going to court that coming Friday, and if Ross did not go to jail, she would shoot him at the courthouse. Ross argues that Williams' testimony was admissible for two reasons: first, that this testimony was relevant to help establish that Paula had a gun or access to a gun with which she could have shot herself, [7] and, second, the evidence was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but to show the decedent's then existing state of mind. Ind. R. Evid. 803(3). Generally, an out-of-court statement is not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rule 803(3) allows statements of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, such as intent, plan, motive, and design, to be entered into evidence. In Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535 (Ind.1995), we noted some instances in which testimony about a victim's state of mind is admissible: (1) to show the intent of the victim to act in a particular way, (2) when the defendant puts the victim's state of mind in issue, and (3) sometimes to explain physical injuries suffered by the victim. We will only reverse a trial court's hearsay ruling if the court has abused its discretion. Light v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1073, 1081 (Ind.1989). We affirm the trial court's ruling if it can be done on any legal grounds apparent in the record. Id. Ross argues that had Paula's statement been entered into evidence, [he] could have argued that due to her state of mind, she could have been suicidal, and that she did possess a weapon that could have been used to take her life. (Brief of Appellant at 11.) Ross wanted the statement admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, that Paula intended to shoot Ross, which thereby implied that Paula possessed or had access to a gun. Consequently, it is inadmissible. In addition, Paula's state of mind was not a material issue in the case. [8] Certainly, deciding whether Paula's state of mind was in issue in this case was within the trial court's discretion. The trial court properly excluded Williams' testimony.