Opinion ID: 444626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Ginters' Statements to Police

Text: 83 At trial Mr. and Mrs. Ginter sought to call law enforcement officers to the stand to testify as to certain exculpatory comments the defendant had made to the officers after their arrest. The statements were disallowed as hearsay. They now claim the district court erred in not allowing the testimony, as it fell within the exceptions to the hearsay rule. We reject the defendants' arguments. 84 Leonard Ginter relies on FED.R.EVID. 803(3), which provides as a hearsay exception [a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion   . Any evidence of Leonard Ginter's existing state of mind or emotion on June 5, 1983, the date the allegedly exculpatory statement was made, clearly was not relevant to the charges in the indictment which concerned the events of June 3, 1983. See FED.R.EVID. 401. This is buttressed by the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 803(3), which state that this exception is a specialized application of the present sense impression exception contained in Rule 803(1). 85 Both defendants claim their statements were admissible under FED.R.EVID. 804(b)(3), as declarations against interest. They assert that they were unavailable as witnesses, as required by the rule, because of their fifth amendment privilege not to testify. See Walker v. Lockhart, 726 F.2d 1238 at 1266 (8th Cir.1984) (Arnold, J., concurring). However, 804(a)(1) defines unavailability as a witness as the situation in which the declarant is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege. As the Advisory Committee Notes state: [a] ruling by the judge is required, which clearly implies that an actual claim of privilege must be made. The record in this case reflects neither a claim of privilege, nor a ruling by the court. 86 Finally, we note that the offers of proof with respect to the officers' testimony failed to establish that the statements were inculpatory. The evidence would have shown that the Ginters planned to negotiate the surrender of Kahl in another week. Given the overwhelming evidence in this case, we do not believe the exclusion of this evidence affected the outcome of the trial. To the contrary, any error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See FED.R.CRIM.P. 52(a).