Opinion ID: 2329200
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Jeffrey Dailey

Text: We next consider the testimony of Jeffrey Dailey, the defendant's cousin and a friend of the victim. During direct examination of Dailey, the state asked, Did [the victim] ever say anything to you about being scared at all? The defendant objected to the question as calling for hearsay. The state maintained that the state of mind exception applied, and the trial court overruled the objection. The following exchange then took place between the state and Dailey: Q. Did [the victim] indicate to you anything about being scared in the past when you knew her? A. Yeah, she said it one time. Just once. Q. What did she say? A. She just said that she was afra  you know, I mean, she didn't  she was just afraid of how he was acting. You know what I mean? Once in a while. Q. Of who? A. How [the defendant] was acting once in a while. The defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted Dailey's testimony under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule for the following reasons: (1) the statement was about facts or events; (2) the statement contained the cause or reason for the state of mind; (3) the statement was not presented exclusively as evidence of the victim's state of mind because, although it touched on the victim's state of mind, it also established that the defendant did something to cause her to be fearful; (4) the victim's state of mind was irrelevant to any material issue in the case; and (5) the evidence was more prejudicial than probative. [10] We disagree. Dailey's testimony that the victim stated that she was just afraid of how he was acting, contains no reference to specific facts or events involving the defendant that caused the victim's state of mind. In State v. Dehaney, supra, 261 Conn. at 359, 803 A.2d 267, we concluded that those portions of an affidavit filed by the homicide victim in support of her request for an ex parte restraining order against the defendant that referred to specific acts of alleged prior misconduct by the defendant were inadmissible because they [were] statement[s] of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The inadmissible portion of the affidavit included statements such as, I am physically abused at least once a month and verbally abused daily; id., at 353, 803 A.2d 267; and [a]t least once a month, my husband starts fights with me. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In the present case, Dailey's testimony contains no such statements of memory or belief by the victim, nor does the victim's statement refer to any specific act of the defendant that caused her to be fearful. Thus, the defendant's argument that the statement was not offered exclusively for the victim's state of mind also fails. The defendant's remaining arguments fail for the reasons discussed in part I A 1 of this opinion. 3