Opinion ID: 2598865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Exclusion of evidence in support of the defendant's trial theory.

Text: The defendant argues that the trial court committed error by excluding evidence of the plea negotiations in a separate case. A defendant must be permitted to present a complete defense in a meaningful manner, and exclusion of evidence which is an integral part of a defendant's theory violates the right to a fair trial. However, a defendant's right to call and examine witnesses is not absolute and on occasion will be overridden by `other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.' State v. Green, 254 Kan. 669, 675, 867 P.2d 366 (1994). The admissibility of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Lumley, 266 Kan. 939, 950, 976 P.2d 486 (1999). Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. 266 Kan. at 950. The defendant relies upon State v. Mixon, 27 Kan. App. 2d 49, 53, 998 P.2d 519 (2000) (The defendant's fundamental right to a fair trial is violated if relevant, admissible, and noncumulative evidence which is an integral part of the theory of the defense is excluded.). Mixon affirmed the conviction because, while the trial court limited some of the defendant's evidence, the defendant was still able to present four witnesses in addition to his own testimony. 27 Kan. App. 2d at 53-54. While the defendant admits that he was able to present his defense that he suffered from a mental disease or defect in the form of PTSD, he argues the exclusion of evidence that Hill had been at large was critical to his defense. The State argues that the trial court allowed the defendant to present evidence of his theory of defense, along with sufficient evidence to support that theory. The defendant admits he was able to present evidence he suffered from PTSD. However, the defendant stresses that without evidence that there was a plea bargain between Hill and the State resulting in probation for Hill which would have showed the jury that Hill was free to further terrorize the defendant, the jury could not appreciate the stress under which the defendant suffered. However, the defendant called his ex-wife to testify about the Hill incidents, establishing that the defendant was under continuous fear. The defendant also testified about his fear. Further, two psychologists supported his theory. The defendant's view of this issue is skewed for he assumes the jury believed Hill was safely locked up. The defendant's own evidence of his fear belies this notion. The State also correctly points out that Dr. Parks testified that part of the defendant's problem was the fact that the person who was terrorizing him was not held but for a very short time, and that [t]here was a process that went on where the person was put on probation. From this evidence, the jury would have had no reason to believe Hill was in prison. The defendant fails to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the evidence of plea negotiations between the State and Hill.