Opinion ID: 852566
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amanda Buck's Videotaped Statement

Text: Amanda Buck was nine years old at the time of the murders and lived across the street from Aaron Milewski. She gave a videotaped statement to Police Officer Riehl on September 22, 1998, four days after the murders; in the videotape, she said she saw Aaron at his house after 3:30 p.m. on the day of the murders. At trial, however, Buck testified that she had no memory of the police interview and that she did not see Aaron on the day in question. Kubsch attempted to read a transcript of the videotape into evidence as a recorded recollection exception to hearsay, or alternatively to impeach Buck with the prior inconsistent statement. The trial court denied admission of the videotape and any impeachment. Kubsch argues on appeal that the recorded recollection exception applied, that he should have been able to impeach Buck, and that the trial court violated his right to present a defense when it refused to admit the videotape. A. Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. . . . Ind. Evidence Rule 803(5). The final element  the recording reflects the witness's knowledge correctly  is the one at issue. The recorded recollection exception applies when a witness has insufficient memory of the event recorded, but the witness must be able to vouch for the accuracy of the prior [statement]. Gee v. State, 271 Ind. 28, 36, 389 N.E.2d 303, 309 (1979); see also Williams v. State, 698 N.E.2d 848, 851 n. 4 (Ind.Ct. App.1998) (requiring some acknowledgement that the statement was accurate when it was made). Buck testified twice that she had no memory of being interviewed by the police in 1998. (Trial Tr. at 2985.) As a result, the trial court correctly denied Kubsch the opportunity to read Buck's statement into evidence, because Buck could not vouch for the accuracy of a recording that she could not even remember making. B. Prior Inconsistent Statement. The trial court ruled that Kubsch could not impeach Buck with her statements in the videotape because Buck gave no substantive evidence in her trial testimony. ( Id. at 3031-32, 3120.) The court observed that Buck simply stated that she could not remember being interviewed by the police four days after the murder, and therefore, there was no positive fact . . . subject to impeachment. ( Id. at 3120.) It was within the trial court's discretion to rule that Buck's testimony that she could not remember the police interview was not inconsistent with her statements to the police that she saw Aaron around 3:30 in the afternoon. See Dunlap v. State, 761 N.E.2d 837, 845 (Ind.2002) (statement at trial of `I am not sure' or `I don't remember' is not necessarily inconsistent with an earlier statement that provides the answer to the question being asked). Buck's claim of lack of memory, however, was not her only testimony. In response to defense counsel's attempt to establish Buck did not remember her statements to the police, Buck offered, I probably didn't see [Aaron], because I go straight [from] home to the day care, and then I would go home afterwards. (Trial Tr. at 2985.) This testimony directly contradicts her statement to the police that she saw Aaron that afternoon, and Kubsch should have been allowed to impeach her on this matter. We hold this error harmless, nonetheless. Monica Buck, Amanda's mother, was present with Amanda during the videotaped interview on September 22, 1998. ( Id. at 3025.) Three days after the interview, Monica's husband Lonnie called Officer Riehl to tell Riehl that Amanda was mistaken and instead saw Aaron the afternoon before the murders. ( Id. at 3012-14.) Monica followed up with a subsequent statement indicating that it was not Friday that she and Amanda saw Aaron. ( Id. at 3013.) The prosecution was prepared to put both Officer Riehl and Monica on the stand to testify to this effect. [7] ( Id. at 3014-15.) Amanda's testimony should have been impeached, but other testimony would have supported hers had she been impeached, and therefore, her testimony likely did not contribute to the conviction. See Pavey v. State, 764 N.E.2d 692, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (An error in the admission of evidence is not prejudicial if the evidence is merely cumulative of other evidence in the record.).