Opinion ID: 1298321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Relationship with Wife

Text: Defendant next contends that the admission of statements made by a police detective in the jury's presence concerning defendant's deteriorating relationship with his wife prior to the murder was improper. The following took place before the jury: Q. [By Mr. Scull]: Did you ever discuss with Mr. Fulminante on the 16th or 17th his relationship with his stepdaughter, Jeneane? A. [By Mark Jones]: Yes. Q. What was his response? A. He felt that his relationship with his daughter was good. In fact, he made the comment that because Mary worked, and he didn't, that Jeneane would come to him with her problems. Q. All right. Did he indicate or did you ever ask him how his relationship was with Mary? Mr. Koopman: Objection, irrelevant. The Court: Sustained. Well, wait a minute, let me  Mr. Scull: There's going to be a tie in, Judge. The Court: I'll let you  on what basis are you asking that that be  why are you objecting to that? Mr. Koopman: Your Honor, I don't see what my client saying his relationship with his wife is has to do with the death of this little girl. I also  I also think that it might go  we might be [infringing] on the spousal relationship, Your Honor, and the privilege attached thereto, which may come into issue at sometime in this case. The Court: Let me hear you. Mr. Scull: I'm asking what Mr. Fulminante said about his relationship with Mary. One of the things that the State expects to prove is that the relationship between Oreste Fulminante and Mary was not good. It was deteriorating rapidly and that's one of the reasons that we believe he committed this homicide, was to get rid of this girl so that he could re-establish his relationship with his wife. The Court: Let me see counsel at the bench for a moment, please. (Whereupon, a discussion was held at the bench between the Court and both counsel, out of the hearing of the jury and the Court Reporter.) The Court: The objection is sustained. Defendant first argues that the prosecutor's argument was clearly improper, and that it should have been stricken. Defendant is, however, precluded from arguing for the first time on appeal that the prosecutor's comments should have been stricken where he failed to request the trial court to do so. State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435, 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981). Defendant further argues that it was prejudicial for the jury to hear the argument on the objection to the question. Again, defendant did not request to have the matter heard outside the jurors' presence. In any event, defendant suffered no prejudice because of the prosecutor's comments. The state subsequently presented direct and more damaging testimony from defendant's wife that defendant's relationship with her was troubled. We find no error. e. Evidence that other persons suspected defendant had committed the crime Defendant next contends the trial court erred in admitting testimony from a police detective that others felt defendant had committed the crime. This matter is raised as a separate grounds for error in item 9 of the Trial Issues. We will consider the question under that heading. f. Evidence of victim's dislike of defendant The victim's mother testified as follows: Q. [By Mr. Scull] Was there a time when she spent the night over at a friend's house and that was without prior approval from you? A. [By Mary Elizabeth Hunt] Yes. Q. Okay. On that occasion, were you advised of that, that she was doing that? A. I had found out where she was. I did not know that she was planning to do that without my knowledge, no, but I did find out where she was. Q. All right. What did you do about it? A. Well, I made an arrangement with the mother of the little girl whose house where she went to stay would take care of her for that weekend until I had a chance to collect my thoughts and decide what we should do about it. Q. All right. What did you do about it? A. Well, we decided that, you know, she came home over the weekend, and I decided to talk to her, and to ask her, you know; she told me why she did what she done and it was because she didn't want to stay in the house with Oreste any more and she really didn't want to come back home if he was going to stay. Q. Is that the only occasion like that? A. Jeneane has never, ever, ever left that house. That was the first time. Defendant argues that evidence of the victim's dislike and desire not to continue living in the same household with defendant was improperly admitted. The defendant further maintains the evidence was victim's opinion as to the defendant's character, and thus is prejudicial and irrelevant. We disagree. We believe that under the circumstances in which the statements were made, the statements lie within an exception to the hearsay rule. Pursuant to Rule 803(3), Ariz.R.Evid., the then existing state of mind of the victim may be admissible to show the victim's dislike of the defendant. A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, 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 unless it relates to the execution, revocation, indentification, or terms of declarant's will. Ariz.R.Evid. 803(3) 17A A.R.S. The victim's desire in this case was not being offered to prove anything remembered or believed. It fits within the state of mind exception, and it was relevant. Rule 401 provides: Relevant evidence means evidence 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. As we have stated: Evidence is relevant if it has any basis in reason to prove a material fact in issue or if it tends to cast light on the crime charged. State v. Moss, 119 Ariz. 4, 5, 579 P.2d 42, 43 (1978). The wish of the victim not to live in the same house with the defendant was relevant in this case because it was used to show that the victim and defendant did not get along and ill feelings existed between the parties. Establishing that the victim disliked the defendant and hence that the family situation was not harmonious, were factors in disputing defendant's claims that he had no reason or motive to murder the victim. Additionally, since the defendant claimed that the victim and he got along well, and no feelings of ill will between the parties existed, the statements of the victim's mother are relevant to dispute this contention. See People v. Arcega, 32 Cal.3d 504, 527, 186 Cal. Rptr. 94, 107, 651 P.2d 338, 350 (1982). This kind of statement is unlike the one recently held inadmissible and irrelevant by this court. State v. Charo, 156 Ariz. 561, 564, 754 P.2d 288, 291 (1988). In that case, this court held that the victim's fear is irrelevant to prove the defendant's conduct. Id. at 565, 754 P.2d at 292. Conversely, in this case, the evidence of the victim's dislike, as opposed to fear, of the defendant is not being used to show the defendant's conduct; rather it is being used as evidence of the defendant's motive for killing the victim. We believe the evidence was admissible and relevant for the purpose of establishing the troubled relationship between the defendant and the victim and that the probative value of the disputed evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. at 417, 661 P.2d at 1128. We find no error. g. Defendant's reputation for truthfulness During direct examination, Sarivola testified as follows: Q. [By Mr. Scull]: Now, what kind of reputation, if you know, did Mr. Fulminante have around the prison for being truthful and honest? A. [By Mr. Sarivola]: Well, most people believe him not to be truthful. Defendant argues this evidence was not presented for the purpose of impeachment, because the defendant did not testify, but rather presented to show the defendant was of bad character, in violation of Rule 404(a), Arizona Rules of Evidence. Defendant also contends the admission of the evidence violated Rule 608(a), Arizona Rules of Evidence. We need not consider this allegation. Defendant made no objection and may not raise the question on appeal. We have previously held: It is well established that failure to object to evidence, testimony or arguments waives these matters on appeal. See, e.g. State v. Wilson, 113 Ariz. 308, 553 P.2d 235 (1976). Additionally, a party must state distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objections. State v. Baca, 102 Ariz. 83, 425 P.2d 108 (1967): 17A A.R.S. Rules of Evidence, Rule 103(a)(1). By failing to make a timely, specific objection to the prosecutor's remarks or the victim's testimony, appellant has waived these issues on appeal absent a finding of fundamental error. State v. Thomas, 130 Ariz. 432, 435, 636 P.2d 1214, 1217 (1981). See also, State v. Smith, 136 Ariz. 273, 277, 665 P.2d 995, 999 (1983), appeal after remand, 141 Ariz. 510, 687 P.2d 1265 (1984). The error, if such, was waived.