Opinion ID: 853872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence at the Post-Conviction Hearing

Text: The defendant contends that the post-conviction court erred in excluding as hearsay certain material and relevant evidence. At the post-conviction hearing, the post-conviction court excluded the affidavits of two experts who conducted psychological evaluations on the defendant, Dr. Dwight Schuster, a court-appointed psychiatrist who examined the defendant for competency and sanity, and Dr. Joseph P. King, the expert psychiatrist retained by the defense; the affidavits of two witnesses, Butheyl Ray Miller and Marcella Wolfe, who recounted various parts of the defendant's background and events relating to the night of the crimes, although neither witnessed the actual killings; and the prior testimony of Norman Lefstein, Dean and Professor of Law at the Indiana University School of LawIndianapolis, from a previous case in which he testified concerning systemic defects in the Marion County public defender system. The defendant claims that the court's exclusion of the evidence was erroneous because, under the circumstances of his capital case, the exclusion of evidence denied him a full and fair post-conviction hearing. Brief of Petitioner-Appellant at 140. Relying on Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 99 S.Ct. 2150, 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979) (per curiam), the defendant argues that the evidence presented in the affidavits was so material and relevant that excluding it under the hearsay rule deprived the defendant of due process. In Green, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a state court's exclusion of evidence under the state's hearsay rule in a capital sentencing hearing. Id. at 97, 99 S.Ct. at 2151-52, 60 L.Ed.2d at 741. The excluded testimony originated from a codefendant's confession and related directly to the degree of participation of both defendants in the crimes. In the Court's opinion, the trial court had excluded highly relevant, sufficiently reliable testimony from a witness whom the state had used in its prosecution of Green's codefendant, but whose testimony the state objected to in Green's sentencing hearing. The Court determined that, even though the evidence may have been properly excluded under the state's hearsay rule, the evidence was highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial and that the state court, in excluding the evidence, violated due process and deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial. Id. The Court specifically stated that its decision was limited under the facts of this case and [i]n these unique circumstances. Id. at 97, 99 S.Ct. at 2151, 60 L.Ed.2d at 741. Furthermore, the Court did not hold that all hearsay evidence had to be admitted in capital sentencing determinations. Unlike Green, the exclusion at issue in this case occurred during post-conviction proceedings, not during the critical punishment phase of the trial. Furthermore, the exclusion of the proffered evidence did not deprive the defendant of an opportunity fairly to present his case. Already before the post-conviction court was evidence of the defendant's family history, mental history, problems with alcohol, and circumstances surrounding the crime. The testimony of Dr. David Richard Price and several psychiatric reports were already in evidence and provided adequate psychological evaluation. Attorneys Robert Spangenberg and Robert Hill had already testified regarding the state of affairs in the Marion County public defender system. The excluded evidence was cumulative in nature. The Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies provide in relevant part that [t]he court may receive affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or other evidence. P-C.R. 1(5). Because the admission or exclusion of evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion, a reviewing court defers to the trial court and will not disturb its ruling on review unless the trial court abused its discretion. Roche, 690 N.E.2d at 1134. Under the facts of this case, we decline to find that the post-conviction court abused its discretion in excluding this evidence.