Opinion ID: 1119070
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Logan's Hearsay Statements

Text: Kemp claims the court erred in admitting evidence that Logan made statements to the police about the murder. Before trial, and after Kemp's and Logan's trial was severed, Kemp filed a motion to preclude Logan's hearsay statements. Apparently, the motion was not ruled upon. At trial, after the judge ruled that defense counsel had opened the door to their admission, the police detective who had interrogated both Logan and Kemp was permitted to testify to some of the statements made by Logan. On direct examination during the State's case-in-chief, the police detective testified that he questioned Kemp after his arrest and that Kemp agreed to answer some of his questions. Through the police detective, some of Kemp's admissions concerning his activities and association with Logan before the murder were admitted. On cross-examination, defense counsel elicited answers that all of the physical evidence, with the exception of the fuzzy ATM photograph, implicated Logan but not Kemp. He then went on to ask: Q: There is no evidence that Kemp had possession of the gun that killed Hector [Juarez] at any time after the purchase? A: No. Q: And in fact, the only evidence you have got of what happened to that gun is it was used to kill Hector and Jeff Logan had it; no evidence Thomas Kemp was in the Siverbell Mines area that night, is there? A: No. Q: There is no evidence that Thomas Kemp knew? A: No. Q: There is no evidence that Thomas Kemp was at the scene where the body was found at all? A: No. Transcript of June 3, 1993, at 69 (emphasis added). The State on re-direct was permitted to question the police detective about his interrogation of Logan to rebut the inference that no evidence connected Kemp to Juarez's murder in Marana. The police detective testified to the following: he had a tape recorded conversation with Logan; Logan said he had been in Tucson two or three days before Juarez's disappearance; Logan told him what happened to Juarez; and Logan told him what he and Kemp were doing the night Juarez disappeared. The trial judge determined that this limited line of inquiry was sufficient to meet the improper inference created by Kemp's defense counsel. The trial judge did not permit the State to elicit Logan's statements that Kemp shot Juarez and to explain how it was that Logan knew where the body was located. Defense counsel objected to the evidence based on hearsay. The trial judge ruled that the questions asserting that no evidence connected Kemp to the murder scene created a false inference and opened the door enough to allow the State to rebut this inference. On appeal, the State argues that some of this evidence is not hearsay because the statements were not offered for proof of their truth, but just for the fact that they were made. Rule 801(c), Ariz.R.Evid. See John W. Strong, 2 McCormick on Evidence § 250, at 111 (4th ed. 1992). However, the statements were also offered by the State to show that Kemp participated in the murder. Because this is a mixed question, we analyze these statements as if they were hearsay. Kemp's questioning on cross-examination created the inference that no evidence connected him to Juarez's killing. In fact, there was evidence, Logan's statements, connecting Kemp to the murder scene. Kemp, of course, is entitled to comment on the strength of the State's case against him. If Kemp's defense counsel had asserted that all of the physical evidence inculpated Logan but not Kemp, or otherwise limited his inquiry, no improper inference would have been raised. Kemp's counsel went beyond this. He left the jury with the impression that no evidence connected Kemp to the murder. Kemp invited error with his cross-examination. As we stated in State v. Lindsey, [i]n essence the `open door' or `invited error' doctrine means `that a party cannot complain about a result he caused.' 149 Ariz. 472, 477, 720 P.2d 73, 78 (1986) (quoting M. Udall & J. Livermore, Law of Evidence § 11, at 11 (3d ed. 1991)). By asserting the non-existence of evidence connecting Kemp to the murder, defense counsel cannot now claim error occurred by meeting the assertion with contrary proof. We reached the same conclusion in State v. Martinez, 127 Ariz. 444, 622 P.2d 3 (1980). Martinez was being tried for armed robbery. He was arrested after a subsequent robbery attempt went awry; his accomplice escaped and was not arrested. Before trial the court granted Martinez's motion to preclude evidence of the subsequent attempted robbery because its prejudice substantially out-weighed its probative value. When Martinez took the stand in his own defense, he testified that he knew his accomplice only vaguely and had met him once when  last November, I think just briefly. Id. at 446, 622 P.2d at 5. He also testified that he had seen the rifle used in the robbery in someone else's possession, but was vague about the circumstances. Id. The trial court allowed the State to elicit testimony regarding the subsequent robbery attempt, including testimony that Martinez struggled for control of the rifle. Id. at 447, 622 P.2d at 6. We rejected Martinez's challenge to the admission of this testimony and stated that [w]hen the defendant, as here, `opens the door' by denying certain facts which the evidence, previously excluded, would contradict, he may not rely on the previous ruling that such evidence will remain excluded. Id. In all events, Kemp suffered no prejudice from the admission of Logan's statements. The only new information the jury learned, that it did not already know from other sources, was that Logan made a statement about what happened the night Juarez was abducted, robbed, and killed. The other evidence was cumulative to Kemp's admissions. Specifically, through Kemp's statement after his arrest, the jury had already been informed of Kemp's concern about Logan, the fact that Logan and Kemp had spent a few days together before the homicide, and that they were together the night of the homicide. Any error would have been harmless in light of the substantial evidence of Kemp's guilt.