Opinion ID: 1652067
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: investigative hearsay

Text: It was hoped that Sanborn v. Commonwealth [19] was the death-knell for the so-called investigative hearsay exception to the hearsay rule. [20] I fear that today's majority opinion's analysis of the investigative hearsay issues presented here will either resuscitate the exception or, by suggesting that subsequent testimony from the declarant erases such errors, otherwise pave the way for the introduction of hearsay evidence. Accordingly, as to the investigative hearsay introduced during Detective McKinney's testimony, I wish to emphasize two (2) things. First, Detective McKinney should not have been permitted to testify as to out-of-court statements made by Clayton Stephens (Stephens) and Chuck Lanham (Lanham). Although the majority opinion describes Detective McKinney's testimony as to Stephens's out-of-court statements as technically hearsay, it was unquestionably error to permit Detective McKinney to give a preview of Stephens's testimony by relating Stephens's previous out-of-court statements. Moreover, a prosecutor's expectation that a declarant will testify later in the trial is wholly irrelevant to the admissibility of hearsay evidence as to the declarant's statements, and Stephens's subsequent in-court testimony could not erase the previous error. Similarly, Detective McKinney's testimony as to Lanham's out-of-court statements was inadmissible, and the fact that Lanham's conclusion was supported by an entirely different expert, Dwight Deskins, did not eliminate the erroneously-admitted hearsay evidence. Second, although I agree with the majority's conclusion that the improper hearsay evidence was harmless in this case, I do so because, in my view, Appellant was not prejudiced by the substance of the erroneously admitted hearsay testimony. I wish to emphasize, however, that, in many cases, the erroneous admission of investigative hearsay will not be rendered harmless merely because the declarant subsequently testifies at the trial. Here, Detective McKinney's testimony improperly bolstered Stephens's testimony regarding Appellant's son's purchase of a .357 Magnum handgun and erroneously supplied an additional expert's opinion that the handgun purchased from Stephens did not fire the rounds that killed the victims in this case. Because the issue of whether this handgun was used in the commission of this offense was not seriously disputed and, in my estimation, was largely inconsequential to the resolution of this case, I agree with the majority that the erroneous introduction of this hearsay evidence was harmless on these facts. However, in a case where the improperly admitted hearsay testimony bolsters or adds testimony on an issue of more substance, investigative hearsay of this type may warrant a new trial. COOPER and STUMBO, JJ., join.