Opinion ID: 2824295
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Direct Evidence

Text: Mr. Taylor first contends Ms. Little’s proffered testimony was relevant because it related to Mr. Taylor’s interactions with police and provided testimony of her direct observation of the crime and surrounding circumstances that went “to the heart of what happened that night, at that arrest.” “[D]irect evidence is that coming from an ‘eye witness;’ or one who speaks directly ‘of his own knowledge’ on the main or ultimate fact to be proven; or who ‘saw or heard’ the factual matters concerning which he testifies.” State v. Famber, 214 S.W.2d 40, 43 (Mo. 1948). Mr. Taylor concedes that Ms. Little did not personally eyewitness Mr. Taylor’s conduct prior to his arrest or his pursuit and initial apprehension by the officers. Rather, he claims she was an eyewitness to the “state of the street that night” and Mr. Taylor “being brought into custody.” Regarding Mr. Taylor’s claim that Ms. Little was an eye witness to the “state of the street that night,” the only proffered testimony regarding her observations prior to seeing Mr. Taylor handcuffed and on the ground was that “George Ford was outside at the time when she heard a commotion.” Her personal knowledge that Mr. Ford was outside has little probative value. There was no claim that she observed where Mr. Ford was physically located or what he was doing while he was outside. The mere fact that he was outside does not make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. It merely indicates that Mr. Ford may have witnessed relevant events that night, but Mr. Taylor did not call Mr. Ford as a witness. Ms. Little’s proffered testimony that the 8 relationship between Mr. Ford and Mr. Taylor “was stepson” also has little relevance because there is no evidence of any interaction between the two men in her proffered testimony or the testimony of the other witnesses at trial. Regarding her observations of “Mr. Taylor being brought into custody,” the offer of proof was that her first observation of Mr. Taylor was when he was on the ground and handcuffed. Her proffered testimony does not include observations of Mr. Taylor’s conduct at the time he was observed by the officers, how he reacted to his encounter with them, or whether he ran from the officers, threw a plastic bag of cocaine, or was apprehended in the manner they claim. Mr. Taylor argues, nevertheless, that her proffered testimony relates to the surrounding circumstances of Mr. Taylor’s apprehension and arrest. The offer of proof included testimony by Ms. Little that she observed Mr. Taylor handcuffed on the ground and the police shouting about a gun or a weapon. There is nothing that aids Mr. Taylor’s defense in her observations that he was handcuffed on the ground and the police were shouting about a gun or a weapon. These observations have little logical relevance because they do not make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. There is no dispute that Mr. Taylor was handcuffed on the ground as he was arrested, and there is no claim that he had a gun or weapon during his encounter with the officers. Her proffered testimony regarding her observations of other circumstances surrounding Mr. Taylor’s arrest was that she pulled out her cell phone and began videotaping the incident, one of the police officers seized her phone and would not let her 9 videotape, and the police searched Mr. Ford’s truck. Mr. Taylor contends that Ms. Little’s proffered testimony that police ordered her to stop recording and seized her cell phone shows “a separate act of dishonesty by police” in “a case where the witnesses’ credibility is a crucial and central issue of the case.” The offer of proof did not include testimony that Ms. Little was attempting to videotape anything that might have been exculpatory to Mr. Taylor or that the officers were engaged in misconduct that they were attempting to keep from being videotaped. Therefore, the proffered testimony that an officer seized her cell phone is not a “separate act of dishonesty by the police” that she observed. Whether Ms. Little had a right to videotape the events of that evening that the officers may have violated is not logically or legally relevant to whether Mr. Taylor was guilty of possession of cocaine. Likewise, the fact that the officers searched Mr. Ford’s truck does not make the existence of any material fact more or less likely. The final proffered testimony was that Ms. Little would testify that Mr. Ford “saw [the police] walk across the street and search the lot across the street and [the police] didn’t find anything over there[.]” Generally, a witness may only testify to those matters of which the witness has personal first-hand knowledge. State v. Dixon, 420 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Mo. 1967). Because the offer of proof did not indicate that Ms. Little observed these facts, it would have been reasonable for the trial court to assume Mr. Ford told her these facts, which would make her testimony hearsay. “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” State v. McFadden, 391 S.W.3d 408, 431 (Mo. banc 2013). Hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they fall under an exception. Id. Mr. Taylor does not argue that Ms. Little’s testimony regarding anything 10 Mr. Ford saw falls under a hearsay exception. Even if it was not hearsay, this evidence does not aid Mr. Taylor’s defense as Officer Chamblin testified to these same facts in his testimony, so the evidence is cumulative. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cumulative evidence. See State v. Nicklasson, 967 S.W.2d 596, 619 (Mo. banc 1998). In summary, Ms. Little’s testimony regarding her personal observations of Mr. Taylor’s interactions with police and the circumstances surrounding his arrest had little logical or legal relevance and the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the evidence’s potential to confuse or mislead the jury justified exclusion of the evidence. Additionally, Ms. Little’s testimony about matters of which she had no personal knowledge would have been hearsay evidence that was not admissible. Because the trial court’s decision to exclude this evidence was not clearly against the logic of the circumstances or so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration, the exclusion of this evidence was not an abuse of its discretion.