Opinion ID: 2082485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Prior Recorded Testimony

Text: At the second trial of these charges of murder and attempted murder, the trial court over objection admitted a transcript of sworn testimony of the accomplice James Bennett. The sworn testimony had been given orally in court at appellant's first jury trial on these same charges with a full opportunity for cross-examination. Appellant claims as a ground for post-conviction relief that the trial court erred when it admitted the transcript. The post-conviction court rejected the ground, deciding that the ground was raised and decided in the direct appeal, and therefore was res judicata. The unavailability rule applicable to the State's use of the transcript has its foundation in the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions, and the state hearsay rule. United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 106 S.Ct. 1121, 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986); IND. CONST. art. I, § 13; Ind.R.Evid. 804(b)(1). Bennett was serving a sentence for his role in the murders at the time of the second trial, pursuant to a plea agreement. He was transported by the State to the trial, called to the witness stand, and there persisted in refusing to testify, despite his prior agreement to do so, and despite a court order to do so. The State refused to meet his demand for a better deal in return for testifying. At the post-conviction hearing, it was shown for the first time that Bennett had been amenable to threats of further prosecution, but no such threats had been made by the State. In the direct appeal, appellant challenged the trial court's ruling that the State had satisfied the unavailability rule. This Court held that the ruling was not error after considering several bases supporting the claim. We hold that the new supporting argument for the same claim, developed in the post-conviction proceeding, is insufficient as an additional argument to warrant avoiding the res judicata holding. Osborne v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 376. Here, there is no fresh view of the character of the hearsay objection or the harm which may result from its application. Also, there is no contention that the State actually procured the unavailability of Bennett or acted in bad faith in some manner in connection with his motivation to seek a new benefit. The State's interest in maintaining Bennett's sentence was very significant as was its interest in making an additional expenditure of time, effort, and material in fulfilling a threat of further prosecution. Neither does the fact of Bennett's amenability to threat and the failure of the State to make such a threat do more than identify one more example of a deficiency in the State's efforts satisfying the unavailability rule. Wilson v. State (1990), Ind. App., 565 N.E.2d 761. It is not an additional argument which can overcome the bar of res judicata.