Opinion ID: 2345444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Damien's Testimony Properly Excluded

Text: After Johnson was convicted of Hamelin's murder in the present case, the State gave notice that Johnson's 2003 rape conviction would be used to show the existence of one statutory aggravator, conviction of a violent or forcible felony. [83] On August 5, 2003, Johnson pled guilty to one count of Rape in the Fourth Degree. Before taking his plea, Johnson completed the Superior Court plea paperwork, including a guilty plea form and the Truth-In-Sentencing form, on which he answered affirmatively that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently was entering into the plea. During the penalty phase, Johnson informed the prosecutrix that he intended to call his brother Damien Johnson (Damien) to testify about the circumstances of Johnson's 2003 plea. The prosecutrix objected and argued that it would be inappropriate to allow Johnson to challenge the voluntariness of the 2003 plea. Johnson explained that he was not challenging the voluntariness of the plea. Instead, Johnson represented that Damien would testify [he contacted Johnson] through third parties before [Johnson's fourth degree rape] plea and after Shannon Johnson pled in that 2003 case ... he advised Shannon that if there was a plea that was offered that was a good deal he should take it rather than risk being convicted at trial.... The judge sustained the State's objection and ruled that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay: The Court: The purpose of offering this testimony is to establish that the defendant did not accept the plea because he was guilty but rather because he wasn't willing to risk additional jail time. How do you intend to establish that by other than the defendant's testimony since anything he said to his brother is hearsay? [Defense Attorney]: Your Honor, what we could establish is that his brother said beforehand that he should do this because my client is still unwilling to testify or at this point, still allocate in any way. The Court: I can't allow the testimony, it's hearsay. Your objection has been consistent with regard to hearsay. Additionally, because I rule on that, don't necessarily need to reach the issue of whether this jury is to determine whether that conviction is of good validity, so I do not reach that issue because you, unless or until you present admissible valid testimony regarding the challenge to the entry of the plea, the record will establish the conviction. [Defense Attorney]: All right. In analyzing whether any of the statements attributed to Johnson would have been admissible under any of the hearsay rules, the State correctly asserts that the proffered testimony of Damien encompassed two distinct types of conversations: first, conversations that Damien had with Johnson through third parties before [Johnson's] plea; and second, a telephone call between the brothers where Johnson told Damien that he had already accepted a plea. We have determined that the trial judge properly ruled that Damien's testimony with regard to either type of conversation would have constituted inadmissible hearsay. The first type of conversation at issue is Damien's communication with Johnson through others. In examining the admissibility of Damien's account of the third party conversations with Johnson, we note the obvious fact that Damien did not speak with his brother himself. To the extent that Damien wanted to testify about conversations he had with a third party conveying messages for Johnson or for Damien between Johnson and a third party, such testimony would be hearsay within hearsay. Under Delaware Rule of Evidence 805, [h]earsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules. Accordingly, [i]f double hearsay is being offered into evidence, each aspect must qualify independently as an exception to the hearsay rule. [84] Johnson did not provide the trial judge any authority for why Damien's discussions with third parties about their conversations with Johnson are admissible under any exception to the double hearsay rule. Therefore, the Superior Court correctly concluded that any double testimony by Damien about third party statements attributed to Johnson was inadmissible. The second type of conversation at issue is the representation that Damien would testify that he had a telephone conversation with Shannon Johnson in which they discussed it and Shannon, well, they discussed the fact that he had, in fact, taken the plea. Johnson argues that the trial judge abused her discretion in concluding that Damien's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Johnson contends that his brother's testimony was a statement of Johnson's then existing state of mind at the time he took the 2003 plea and was, therefore, admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 803(3). Rule 803(3) provides an exception to the hearsay rule regardless of whether the declarant is available to testify, for a then existing mental, emotional or physical condition. [85] The requirements for admission of an out-of-court statement under Rule 803(3) are: 1. The statement must be relevant and material; 2. It must be related an existing state of mind when made; 3. It must be made in a natural manner; 4. It must be made under circumstances dispelling suspicion; 5. It must contain no suggestion of sinister motives. [86] Damien's telephone call with Johnson fails to meet the requirements of Rule 803(3). The statement by Johnson that he had already accepted a guilty plea offer did not reflect Johnson's then existing mental, emotional or physical condition. The proffer was that Damien told Johnson to accept a plea if a good deal was offered to him. The trial judge understood Johnson to be offering the telephone conversation between Johnson and Damien to establish that the defendant did not accept the plea because he was guilty but rather because he wasn't willing to risk additional jail time. The State submits that assuming, arguendo, the trial judge correctly described the purpose behind Johnson's offer of proof, Damien's testimony was inadmissible. We agree. A person's state of mind is reflected in his own words at a particular time, e.g., I am afraid. [87] In Capano, we held that the reasons why a person said something cannot be characterized as a statement of the person's state of mind. [88] The Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in ruling that Damien's telephone conversation with Johnson did not meet the standards of admissibility under Rule 803(3).