Opinion ID: 853950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of the Victim's Letters

Text: The State offered three letters which were discovered by police in Pierce's apartment. The handwriting was authenticated as that of the victim. Pierce objected on hearsay grounds, but the trial court admitted the statements under Indiana Rule of Evidence 803(3), the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Yamobi v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1344 (Ind.1996). We reverse only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind. 1997), reh'g. denied. Of the three contested letters, two are directed to Dewayne. The first letter states: Dewayne  Please start talking to me again, I'm sorry that I didn't come back the outher [sic] night and I know you probably think I was doing stuff I wasn't supposed to be doing but all I did was drank [sic] one beer I didn't smoke anything at all. And I don't cheat on my boyfriends I never have [and] never will so now you know what I did [and] didn't do. If you want me to move out, tell me. Your silence hurts me more than anything. Dawn (R. at 783.) The second letter has been extensively crossed out, but remains legible. It states in part: If you want me to move out Just tell me! Please talk to me! I'm sorry I didn't come back the outher [sic] night. Please forgive me if that's why your [sic] mad! (R. at 785.) The third letter is addressed to Hillary and states: Dewayne's not talking to me . . . I like him alot and I can't get into his mind . . . [to] find out how he feels about things . . . oh well I'm glad I found someone who will be good to me. (R. at 784.) Evidence Rule 803(3) allows for admission of hearsay when the statement is offered to show a declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition. We have recently outlined certain instances where statements to show a victim's state of mind may be admissible. Ross v. State, 676 N.E.2d 339, 345 (Ind.1996) (discussing Taylor v. State, 659 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 1995)). Such instances include where the statements are offered: (1) to show the intent of the victim to act in a particular way, (2) to controvert a defendant's evidence when the defendant puts the victim's state of mind at issue, and sometimes (3) to explain a victim's physical injuries. For ease of analysis, we take the three letters as hearsay. [3] The assertions that Dewayne was mad and that he was not talking to Dawn are provable and the inferences to be drawn are sufficiently related to the matter to be provenDewayne was angry with Dawnthat Pierce's interest in confronting the declarant (Dawn) would be triggered but for a hearsay exception. The statements fall within the Rule 803(3) exception, however, because they show Dawn was apprehensive about her relationship with Pierce and because they were offered to controvert defense evidence to the effect that he and the victim were getting along well at the time of the murder. Pierce's mother testified that on the night of the murder Dewayne and Dawn were not fighting or bickering and that both appeared to be in a good mood. (R. at 800-01.) A substantial portion of the defense's closing argument focused on the lack of conflict between the two. (R. at 836-41.) Under these circumstances, the victim's anxiety regarding her relationship with Pierce was admissible and relevant because it showed that the relationship was not as smooth as represented by the defense. See, e.g., Lock v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1155, 1159-60 (Ind.1991) (evidence showing murder victim and defendant were having trouble in their relationship was relevant since status of the relationship was one of the contested issues at trial). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the letters.