Opinion ID: 2084031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay Conversations With Blanton

Text: The State called Blanton's brother and sister who related, over objection, telephone conversations between them and Blanton. Blanton's brother testified that he talked to her on the telephone at a time when she was upset because her daughter, Lock, had taken Blanton's housekey and had not returned it and that no one was supposed to have a key. In the same vein, Blanton's sister was allowed to testify about a telephone conversation which occurred on July 7th in which Blanton, in an excited, high-pitched voice, told her that Lock had failed to return her housekey and that she was concerned because she didn't know what Kimberly will do next. The sister also was allowed to testify that Blanton told her of repeated instances of Lock's refusing to relate to Blanton by not answering the door and hanging up the telephone when Blanton called. Lock argues that this evidence constitutes inadmissible hearsay and violated her constitutional right to confront the witnesses against her. Lock contends that this evidence was purposefully used by the prosecutor to prove that Lock possessed the housekey which Milano testified she gave to him for entry into Blanton's house. The State answers this contention by submitting that the evidence was not offered for the truth of the matters contained within the statements, but was offered to show Blanton's state of mind prior to the crime as being one of fear of the defendant. Our analysis is that the evidence clearly was hearsay in that it was testimony by a witness concerning an out-of-court declaration by a third person and was offered for the purpose of proving the facts asserted by the declarant. Such evidence ordinarily is not admissible because it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to cross examine the declaration and confront the declarant. Skaggs v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 639, 643, 220 N.E.2d 528, 530. This Court in Morse v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 652, 655, 413 N.E.2d 885, 887, discussed the hearsay rule. In Morse the State's theory was that the defendant had lured her ex-husband to her home where she shot him, by telling him that his adopted son, Jimmy, had impliedly attempted suicide. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that her ex-husband broke into her home intending to do bodily harm to their daughter because the daughter had made harassing telephone calls to the victim's home. Over objection, a witness who lived with the ex-husband testified that the ex-husband answered the telephone in the witness' presence and said, Yes, I'll be right there. He hung up, turned around, and said, Jimmy just tried to... . The witness further testified that he did not finish the sentence, but immediately put on his clothes and left. In determining that such testimony was admissible, we held that the statements of the victim were not offered for the truth of the matters they contained but were offered to show why the victim went to the defendant's home. We held, with citation to nine other jurisdictions, that such statements were admissible because they were indicative of a state of mind which circumstantially tended to controvert the claim of self defense. Therefore, the statement was not hearsay at all. That holding has been enlarged upon to the point that we have held that statements offered to show the victim's state of mind prior to the crime are admissible. Dunaway v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 682, 686, and Drummond v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 742, 747. What has not been answered by the flat statements that such out-of-court declarations are admissible to show the victim's state of mind is whether a victim's state of mind is legally relevant. In the present case, however, we need not decide this issue because Blanton's telephonic declarations could serve two purposes. First, they tend to prove that Lock did, in fact, have a key to her mother's house and, secondly, as the State contends, they prove that the victim was fearful of the defendant. We must weigh the prejudicial effect of the admission of the statements for the former purpose against the value of the admission of the statements to the jury in proving the latter. We conclude that the latter purpose prevails because the out-of-court declarations here were offered to prove that Blanton was apprehensive and fearful and, generally having trouble with Lock. This, of course, was one of the contested issues at trial. We believe that had Lock requested an admonishing instruction from the court to disregard the evidence from these witnesses as it related to the issue of whether or not Lock, in fact, had possession of the key, such request should have been given. No such request was made, however, and the failure of the trial court to sua sponte admonish the jury is not error. We find that the statements made by the victim were properly admitted to prove that the relationship between the daughter and the victim was not completely benign, contrary to Lock's assertions at trial.