Opinion ID: 1058888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 28

Heading: Admission of Darla Harvey's Testimony

Text: My review of the record also indicates that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing Darla Harvey to testify that the defendant made her afraid and nervous by staring at her three weeks after the victim's disappearance. The testimony was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and an improper lay opinion in violation of Tennessee Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 701. [1] As the majority summarizes, Darla Harvey testified that when Davidson was in Lakeview Tavern on October 12, 1995, i.e., three weeks after the victim's disappearance, he sat and silently stared at her for over an hour while sipping his beer. Harvey stated that the defendant made her feel uncomfortable and that something was wrong. She further stated that as the defendant's staring continued, she got a gut feeling that she should go outside and look at his truck. After examining his truck, she said to herself, Good I got me a nut. [2] After re-entering the bar, her unease increased as the defendant continued to stare at her, went to the restroom, and looked out the back door. Harvey testified that it was odd for the defendant to leave the bar at one point to get a cigarette because he had just opened a pack of cigarettes. She believed that something wasn't right when the defendant returned because he did not speak to her when she addressed him and he kept his hand in his pocket. Harvey said that by this time, her feeling about the defendant was so bad that she placed her gun close at hand and was ready to shoot the defendant if he came any closer. Finally, Harvey testified that she felt so anxious that she urged some customers to ask the defendant to leave and he did so. Prior to Harvey's testimony, the trial court conducted a jury-out hearing and determined that Harvey's testimony was indicative of the defendant's common scheme and was admissible as evidence of motive. The trial court said: The probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. I said it's highly prejudicial, but I think it's probative value ... and the reason I'm letting it be entered is to prove a circumstantial evidence of motive, and that's the only reason I'm entering it now. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that Harvey's statements about the defendant were relevant to show intent and planning but that the admission of her testimony regarding her feelings was error. The court found the error to be harmless, however, given that other witnesses conveyed similar stories about the defendant's behavior. See Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b); Tenn R.Crim. P. 52(a). Rule 401 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence defines relevant evidence as that having 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. Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Evidence that is relevant under Rule 401 may be excluded, however, when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.... Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Much of Darla Harvey's testimony, particularly her gut feelings, retrieval of her gun, and negative characterization of the defendant, was irrelevant under Rule 401 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Although the majority reasons that the evidence was helpful to understanding why Harvey acted as she did, there was no showing that this witness's state of mind, gut feelings, or opinions describing the defendant's behavior some three weeks after the victim's disappearance had any probative value in determining what events occurred with respect to the victim's death. Moreover, there was no explanation of how Darla Harvey's testimony had any probative value with regard to the defendant's mental state on September 26, 1995. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401. Accordingly, the probative value of this testimony was substantially outweighed by its risk of unfair prejudice. Tenn. R. Evid. 403. [3] In addition, I fail to see how Darla Harvey's testimony would be admissible as evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to establish planning and intent as asserted by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tenn. R. Evid. 404(b). As stated in Rule 404(b), [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity with the character trait. Although such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, there was no showing that Davidson's conduct as described by Darla Harvey was so unique or distinctive that it fit a common scheme or plan as found by the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. See State v. Moore, 6 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn.1999). Nor was there a showing that the evidence was admissible for any other purpose under Rule 404(b). Instead, the prosecution used this testimony to establish the defendant's alleged anti-social behavior by drinking alone in bars, remaining quiet, and staring at women. Finally, I disagree that the admission of this evidence was harmless on the basis that it was cumulative to similar testimony from other witnesses. No other witness testified with the same level of unfairly prejudicial detail and characterization as did Darla Harvey. Indeed, it was Darla Harvey's testimony that the prosecution placed great emphasis upon in its closing arguments: You all remember Darla Harvey.... You recall what she said ... [the defendant was] staring at her, blatantly I believe her words were. It made her feel uncomfortable ... because Jerry Davidson was sitting there staring at her .... Well Darla Harvey at that time knew something was up because she sat there and said I knew he had opened up a new pack of cigarettes and I knew that he didn't need any new pack of cigarettes. And she goes to the end of that bar and she reaches up underneath there and she gets that gun and she flips it off safety and she is ready for Jerry Davidson .... And she got that gun and what did she say to you all? She sat there and said, if he'd come just a little bit further, I'd have shot him. (Emphasis added). Although the majority concludes that the testimony was unlikely to result in any unfair prejudice, the prosecutor emphasized Darla Harvey's testimony as additional evidence on the close question of the defendant's mental state and alleged premeditation in killing the victim: [Davidson] ... was a guy that scared [Darla Harvey] out of her wits.... It's ... important because coupled with the other evidence in this case, listen to me when I say this, coupled with the other evidence in the case, it gives you a glimpse of the defendant Jerry Davidson's mind. Just a glimpse. Does it mean anything? Does it mean anything about motive in this case? I told you in the beginning of this case there's some things we weren't going to be able to prove, but maybe, maybe we have.... [Y]ou know the instruction the Court's going to give you, when you're considering the case of premeditated murder, listen to ... what the judge is going to tell you. It tells you when you're considering whether he premeditatedly killed this woman, it tells you you kind of have to look in his mind. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, given the insufficient evidence of premeditation in this case and the prosecutor's emphasis on Darla Harvey's improper testimony for attempting to establish the defendant's mental state, I would hold that the trial court's ruling was reversible error.