Opinion ID: 1766558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: HearsayRowe's Statement to Gerjuan

Text: In point four, Taylor argues the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Gerjuan's testimony of Rowe's statement to Gerjuan that Taylor's relative lived at Rowe's house. Taylor alleges the testimony was admissible under the due process clause and the curative admissibility doctrine to refute the inference that only Taylor could have committed the crime from the absence of any forced entry and the evidence that only Taylor had access to the home.
The trial court excluded the following portion of Gerjuan's deposition: Q. (By Ms. Beimdiek): And I think you sort of said you knew that [Taylor] had a brother, but do you know anything more about him? A. No. I don't know if that was the brother or the cousin that was living over there. Q. But you knew somebody was living at the house? A. Uh-huh, in the basement. Q. How did you know about that? A. Because I asked her, I said, is he the only one over there? She was like, no, his cousin had came from somewhere and was supposedly living over there. Q. She called him his cousin? A. Yeah, or the brother, one of them. There was no evidence that Gerjuan had ever visited Rowe at her current residence prior to the discovery of the bodies. At trial, Perry Taylor testified that he allowed Rowe to use his vehicle when he was away as a truck driver. There was also testimony that Perry kept some belongings at Rowe's home. In addition, Rowe's neighbor testified at trial, stating that she saw a man walking out of Rowe's house around Thanksgiving; however, she did not recall the date and did not recognize the man.
Gerjuan's testimony that Rowe told her that Taylor's brother or cousin lived at Rowe's house was hearsay. The statement was made out of court and was offered for the truth of the matter: that another person had access to the house. Taylor fails to show that an exception to the hearsay rule applies to this testimony. The statement is not admissible pursuant to due process hearsay exception because the statement does not exonerate the Taylor and lacks any circumstances of reliability. The statement is not against Rowe's interest, was not made spontaneously after an event, and was not sufficiently corroborated. Gerjuan had never been to Rowe's residence, and there was no additional evidence that another adult, such as Taylor's brother or cousin, lived in Rowe's home. The curative admissibility doctrine does not apply. The State introduced testimony of three police officers, all of whom stated that the windows and doors were locked, the front door was undamaged, and the house was not ransacked. The State also introduced several properly admitted photographs depicting the condition of the house, including the doors and windows. Because the State referred to admissible evidence, Taylor cannot introduce inadmissible evidence pursuant to this doctrine. Gerjuan's proposed testimony about the relative is hearsay and inadmissible. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.