Opinion ID: 853074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay Contentions

Text: Lampkins argues two different statements were improperly admitted into evidence.
Lampkins contends that portions of his videotaped statement to police officers that was admitted in evidence were inadmissible hearsay. He objected at trial on the grounds that the tape contained statements from the interrogating officer, Detective Steve Sumner, regarding Lampkins' guilt. During the course of an interview with Lampkins, Detective Sumner can be heard to declare, Well, something's not right here . . . Something stinks. Something stinks bad. . . . You need to be telling us the truth. Detective Sumner also stated, Something stinks. So basically all we've got is your word that Boogie shot this guy. Is that what you're telling us, and I think you was looking out for Boogie. These statements are problematic under Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), which provides that witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions. Because the tape was admitted for all purposes, including the truth of the matter stated, the detective's statements were also hearsay. Relying on Strong v. State, 538 N.E.2d 924 (Ind.1989), the State contends that Detective Sumner's comments were only intended to elicit a response from Lampkins and, as such, were not hearsay. In Strong, this Court held that an audiotape of the defendant's statements to police was admissible, including the interviewing officer's statement, I want to caution you on one thing. Physical evidence proof, stuff that Lt. Loy saw and found at your house on that night . . . Doesn't match stuff that you tell us.... Id. at 928. This Court found the statement to be admissible for two reasons. First, the statement was not hearsay as it was not offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted. Second, the trial court thoroughly explained in an admonishment to the jury that they were to consider the statement to be a method of questioning intended to elicit information from the defendant and not as evidence of her guilt. In Smith v. State, 721 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 1999), we found an interrogating officer's statements to the defendant during an interrogation inadmissible because, unlike Strong, the trial court gave no such limiting instruction or admonishment. As we held in Smith, although a trial court has no affirmative duty to consider giving an admonishment in the absence of a party's request, it is error to admit statements by an interrogating officer without any limiting instruction or admonishment. Id. at 216. Although the jury should have been advised that the detective's statements were not evidence, we conclude that the admission of the detective's statements in this case was harmless. In a subsequent interview with police, Lampkins confessed to having shot Jones twice in the back. He so testified at trial. Harris and Christopher Lampkins supported this admission in their testimony at trial. Harris also testified that, upon returning to Muncie, Larry Lampkins had admitted to at least one other person that he shot Jones. We conclude that in light of this evidence, the admission of the detective's statements did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
At trial, Joe Moore, one of the witnesses present at the shooting, testified that immediately after Jones was shot, he heard someone say, You fuckin' with some real soldiers. Before trial, in statements to the police, Moore had attributed the statement to Harris. At trial, however, he testified that he could not identify who made the statement. The defense argues that the statement was intended by the State to inflame the prejudice and passions of the jury. The statement was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and was therefore not inadmissible on that ground. It was at least marginally relevant because it bore on Lampkins' defense that he was in fear of injury by a hostile Anderson crowd and supported the State's theory that Lampkins approached Jones from behind and shot him in the back without fear of the crowd. The statement's prejudicial effect is equally nebulous. We conclude that the probative value of the statement is not substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice.