Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: testimony concerning mrs. schmunk's statements as hearsay

Text: On April 25, 1984, notice was given pursuant to Rule 804(b)(6), W.R.E., [1] that deceased's mother, sister and brother would testify to separate statements made to each of them by deceased in April and June 1983 concerning her intention to leave appellant. A similar notice was given on April 30, 1984, with reference to testimony to be given by deceased's mother to similar statements made to her by deceased in October 1982, February 1983, and June 1983. Appellant does not contend that the April 25, 1984, notice was not timely; no objection was made to it. But, he contends that the April 30, 1984, notice was not timely. The purpose of the notice, as reflected in the rule, is to give the adverse party    a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the evidence. There is no contention that appellant did not here have sufficient time to meet the evidence referred to in the April 25, 1984, notice, and in fact he did meet it at trial. The evidence noticed on April 30, 1984, was similar to that noticed on April 25, 1984, and it too was met at trial. Adequate notice was thereby evidenced, and there was no error in admission of the evidence on this ground. But, the majority opinion finds the statements to be irrelevant, in any event, since they pertain to the deceased's state of mind, not that of appellant; and since there was no evidence to reflect that the deceased's intention to leave was communicated to appellant, the testimony was irrelevant. However, the majority opinion overlooks the relevancy of the statements in another context; i.e., to meet the defense theory that the marriage of the deceased and appellant was a happy one and that the death was an accident. [2] The appellant, through his testimony regarding a happy marriage, sought to prove the death accidental and not intentional. Evidence to disprove such and to attack appellant's credibility  to impeach him  ought to be equally available to the prosecution. Of note is the fact that the testimony of William (Billy) Duncan (see ante) concerning the same matter (public appearance of a happy marriage but privately otherwise) was admitted without objection. The notice regarding this testimony was obviously sufficient, and the testimony was relevant for the purpose indicated. The admission of it was not error.