Opinion ID: 1742814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Concerning Statements Made by Mary Culbert.

Text: A. The defendant's claim. The defendant objected to the admission of the recording of Culbert's 911 call and the testimony of four witnesses, all of which revealed statements made by Culbert on the night Gillen died. Newell claims the admission of his mother's out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause because Culbert had died by the time of trial; thus, her statements were not subject to cross-examination by the defense. We review claims based on the Confrontation Clause de novo. State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000). The defendant also challenges these statements as irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay. We review the latter claims for correction of errors of law. See Buenaventura, 660 N.W.2d at 50. Much of the testimony to which the defendant objected was admitted by the trial court under an exception to the hearsay rule for excited utterances. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(2) (excluding from the hearsay rule [a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition). Although we base our decision on a different rationale, we find no reversible error in the trial court's ruling. See DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 62-63 (Iowa 2002) (stating appellate court can affirm evidentiary ruling on any ground raised on appeal). As we discuss below, we conclude (1) the challenged testimony was admissible because it was not hearsay or, (2) to the extent it did constitute hearsay, its admission was not prejudicial. Under both conclusions, the court's allowance of Culbert's out-of-court statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause. B. General legal principles. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069, 13 L.Ed.2d 923, 927-28 (1965) (stating this procedural guarantee is applicable to state prosecutions). Two important policies underlie the Confrontation Clause: a preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial and the right of cross-examination. State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 444 (Iowa 2001). Although this constitutional provision generally protects the same values as the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. Id. On the other hand, the Confrontation Clause, like the hearsay rule, does not prevent the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177, 198 n. 9 (2004). The United States Supreme Court recently discussed the parameters of the Confrontation Clause in Crawford. While not confining this provision to testimonial statements of out-of-court declarants, the Court concluded testimonial hearsay was the primary object of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 53, 60, 124 S.Ct. at 1365, 1370, 158 L.Ed.2d at 194, 199. Included in the category of testimonial statements is prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial. . . and to police interrogations. Id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. at 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d at 203. The Court suggested that a casual or offhand remark to an acquaintance may be excludable under the hearsay rule, but bears little resemblance to the civil-law abuses the Confrontation Clause targeted. Id. at 51, 124 S.Ct. at 1364, 158 L.Ed.2d at 192. More importantly, the Court differentiated the test for admissibility depending upon whether the out-of-court statement is testimonial. Testimonial statements may be admitted only if the declarant is unavailable and only if the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. at 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d at 203. As for nontestimonial hearsay, the Court observed that it would be consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law to exempt[ ] such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether or to apply the principles set forth in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). Id. The Court summarized Roberts as holding the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of an unavailable witness's statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears `adequate indicia of reliability,' a test met when the evidence either falls within a `firmly rooted hearsay exception' or bears `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.' Id. at 40, 124 S.Ct. at 1358, 158 L.Ed.2d at 186 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d at 608). The Court was clear, however, that the Roberts test was not applicable to testimonial hearsay. Id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. at 1374, 158 L.Ed.2d at 203. Like the erroneous admission of hearsay, the admission of evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause does not mandate reversal: if the State establishes that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, reversal is not required. See State v. Brown, 656 N.W.2d 355, 361 (Iowa 2003). To determine harmlessness, the inquiry is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict surely would have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182, 189 (1993). Several factors are relevant in assessing whether error was harmless: [T]he importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Brown, 656 N.W.2d at 361-62 (citation omitted). C. Nontestimonial statements. We will first discuss the nontestimonial statements made by Culbert that were introduced at trial. To determine whether this evidence violated the Confrontation Clause, we must decide (1) whether Culbert's statements were offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and if so, (2) whether these statements fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or bear other particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539, 65 L.Ed.2d at 608. If we conclude the admission of any of Culbert's nontestimonial statements violated the Sixth Amendment, we must then consider the question of prejudice. 1. The 911 call. In the 911 tape recording, Culbert asked for an ambulance, and stated her daughter-in-law had fallen and was unresponsive. Culbert also indicated she was present when Gillen fell, stating her daughter-in-law had been drinking quite heavily. The statements made by Culbert in this tape recording were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, the prosecution sought to prove that Culbert attempted to cover-up for her son almost immediately. Therefore, the probative value of these statements rested on the fact they were made, not on whether her story about what happened was true. Because Culbert's statements in the 911 call were not hearsay, their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. 2. Scroggins' testimony. Newell's sister and Culbert's daughter, Christine Scroggins, testified that Culbert called her from Newell's house and told her Gillen was dead. She said Culbert was frantic, freaking out, in an uproar, and upset. Culbert told Scroggins to come to Newell's house. According to Scroggins, Culbert kept saying something about a dinner plate. The defendant claims he was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of Culbert's statement that Gillen was dead and Culbert's reference to something about a dinner plate. We do not consider whether either of these statements is inadmissible hearsay because, even if they are, their admission cannot be deemed prejudicial to Newell. Evidence that the victim was dead when Culbert called 911 was already in the record from numerous sources. Therefore, Scroggins' testimony to the same fact was not prejudicial. See State v. Whitfield, 315 N.W.2d 753, 755 (Iowa 1982) (holding that when same evidence is already in the record, admission of hearsay is not prejudicial). The second objectionable statement was elicited as follows: Q. . . . whenyou were trying to calm [Culbert] down, she's hysterical, did she say anything to you about what happened? A. She kept saying something about a dinner plate. At this point, the defendant's objection to any further testimony on this matter was sustained. Newell claims on appeal Scroggins' testimony implied there had been a fight between himself and Gillen that involved the throwing of dinner plates. We think the solitary reference to a dinner plate was so vague and nonspecific that it cannot be considered prejudicial. 3. Jones's testimony. Culbert's friend, Donna Jones, testified that Culbert was at Jones's house the night Gillen died. She testified that Jonathan Newell called Jones's house looking for Culbert. After Culbert spoke with her son, Culbert tossed the phone down, stated she had to leave, and said something to the effect Kathy and dead. Jones also testified that a few days later she and Culbert disagreed about what Culbert had told Jones at the time of the phone call from Jonathan. Culbert's statement when she left Jones's house is too vague to be prejudicial. It is not clear whether Culbert thought Gillen was already dead or whether she had been told Gillen might be dead. In either event, these statements were cumulative of other admissible evidence that Gillen was or might have been dead when Newell attempted to reach his mother. Therefore, Newell was not prejudiced by Jones's testimony that Culbert said Kathy and dead. Jones's testimony that she and Culbert disagreed about what Culbert told Jones on the night of Gillen's death is clearly not hearsay. Any implied statement made by Culbert in her later conversation with Jones was offered to demonstrate Culbert's efforts to cover-up for her son, not to prove the truth of what she said. 4. Hamlin's testimony. Culbert's sister, Evelyn Hamlin, also testified. She said that on the night Gillen died, she was called to come to Newell's house to help Culbert. According to Hamlin, Culbert was very distressed, was crying, and kept saying it's not true. Hamlin testified that Culbert told her that Newell had told Culbert that he had been watching the baby, that Gillen went out to get food, that when Gillen came back Gillen was mad at the defendant and threw some sandwiches on the table, saying there's your food, and headed for the back door. As with the testimony of Jones, the prior statements made by Culbert were offered to show that they were made, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Because they are not hearsay, their admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause. D. Testimonial statements. We now consider the testimony of two police officers who talked with Culbert on the night of Gillen's death. 1. Officer Chapman's testimony. Officer Joseph Chapman testified that when he was at the scene of the crime, Culbert told him that Newell had asked her to check on Gillen because Gillen was not feeling well. Culbert told the officer that she had been with Gillen for about one-half hour prior to the incident. She further stated that although Culbert was at the house when Gillen fell, Newell was not. The officer testified that at the time these statements were made, Culbert was very excited and at times temporarily out of control emotionally. The court instructed the jury that Culbert's statements to officer Chapman were not to be considered for the truth of the matter asserted. Notwithstanding the testimonial nature of Culbert's statements to the officer, their admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements are not hearsay. Culbert's explanation of what happened on the evening of Gillen's death was not offered to prove that what Culbert stated actually occurred, but rather to show that Culbert was aware that something had happened between her son and the victim and Culbert was trying to protect him by offering an exonerating picture of the event. 2. Detective Moller. The final witness testifying to statements made by Culbert was Detective Lynn Moller. The detective testified to essentially the same statements and observations as did officer Chapman. In addition, detective Moller spoke with Culbert a second time, after he had returned from looking for Newell. During the second conversation, Culbert changed her story. She admitted she had not spent time with Gillen that evening, and that Gillen was already on the floor when Culbert arrived. Culbert asserted she lied because she was afraid Newell would be in trouble for not calling 911. The detective's recitation of Culbert's first version of events was not hearsay because Culbert's statement that she was with Gillen prior to and at the time of Gillen's collapse was not offered to prove the truth of these assertions. In contrast. Culbert's subsequent version of what had occurred was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, namely, that Gillen was already injured, if not dead, when Culbert arrived and Culbert was worried her son would be in trouble for leaving the scene. This information was, however, merely cumulative of Newell's own statements to the police that Gillen collapsed while he was home and that he tried to revive her, panicked, and left. See Brown, 656 N.W.2d at 361 (finding no prejudice from admission of evidence in violation of hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause where same evidence was in the record through the defendant's own admissions to jail mates). Moreover, these facts were essentially undisputed at trial. See In re Detention of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 422 (Iowa 2005) (No prejudice results from erroneous admission of evidence on an issue that is undisputed.). The dispute at trial centered not on the fact of Newell's involvement in Gillen's death, which was the critical fact contained in Culbert's later statement to the detective; the dispute in the case centered on the nature of Newell's involvement. Under these circumstances, we think the jury's guilty verdict was surely unattributable to this evidence, and therefore, its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.