Opinion ID: 2304483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Detective John Patti

Text: Finally, in his pro se brief, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence about Mark McManus. During trial, Detective John Patti of the Manchester Police Department testified that he interviewed McManus the day after the shooting. Patti testified only that McManus was shaken up and was concerned for his safety during the interview. Patti did not relate any of the substance of McManus' statements. The defendant objected to Patti's testimony on the ground that it constituted hearsay. The defendant now argues that because McManus died prior to trial, admitting Patti's testimony about McManus violated Crawford as well as the rules of evidence. As to whether Patti's testimony violated Crawford, we conclude that the issue has not been preserved. The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a contemporaneous and specific objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review. State v. Winstead, 150 N.H. 244, 246, 836 A.2d 775 (2003). The objection must state explicitly the specific ground of objection. Id. The sole objection raised during Patti's testimony was that his statements constituted inadmissible hearsay. As neither Crawford nor the Confrontation Clause was raised in the trial court as an objection to Patti's testimony, we conclude that the issue has not been preserved. As to the defendant's argument under the rules of evidence, we review a trial court's decision on the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. State v. Hall, 152 N.H. 374, 378, 877 A.2d 222 (2005). To meet this standard, the defendant must demonstrate that the trial court's rulings were clearly untenable or unreasonable to his prejudice. Id. The defendant contends that Patti's statements regarding McManus' concerns are inadmissible hearsay. The State counters that Patti's testimony is admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule in New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 803(3). That rule states, in relevant part, that, A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensations, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed is not excluded by the hearsay rule. N.H. R. Ev. 803(3). To be admissible under this exception, the declaration must concern the mental state of the declarant and have reference to the time at which the declaration was made. Hall, 152 N.H. at 378, 877 A.2d 222. Here, the statements were introduced to show McManus' state of mind at the time he was interviewed by the police, which included concern for his safety. We conclude that the trial court's decision to admit Patti's testimony about McManus' state of mind at the time of his interview was not an unsustainable exercise of discretion. The defendant argues that even if a general statement of McManus' concern was admissible, the statement that he was concerned for his safety is not because it expresses a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered. We do not agree. Stating that McManus was merely concerned does not explain his state of mind. Concern for one's safety is not the same as, for example, concern about the fates of Denoncourt or the defendant. In testifying that McManus was concerned for his safety, Patti was relating the then-existing state of McManus' mind. Thus, his testimony falls within the ambit of Rule 803(3). Affirmed.