Opinion ID: 854074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Resolution of this Case on Remand

Text: On a motion to set aside a default judgment, the burden is on the movant to show sufficient grounds for relief. Bonaventura v. Leach, 670 N.E.2d 123, 125 (Ind.Ct. App.1996). At a hearing on the motion under Trial Rule 60(B)(6) Stidham offered as evidence of the Indiana court's lack of personal jurisdiction an exhibit that consisted of a certified copy of the entire court file of the Kentucky proceedings. This exhibit included the 1979 order of the Kentucky court. It also included a transcript of testimony by Stidham that he had never been in Indiana, barely knew Whelchel, and never had sexual intercourse with her in Indiana or anywhere else. Whelchel did not appear in the Kentucky proceeding in 1979. Seventeen years later, at the Trial Rule 60(B)(6) hearing Whelchel offered no evidence. Instead she objected that Stidham's exhibit was inadmissible hearsay. Although Whelchel objected to the exhibit, her objection was directed to Stidham's testimony as hearsay and not to the Kentucky court's order. She contended that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay under Evidence Rule 804(b)(1) and did not address Stidham's claim, also phrased to apply to the entire exhibit, that the exhibit was an admissible public record under Evidence Rule 803(8). The trial court correctly sustained Whelchel's objection to the transcript of the Kentucky hearing. One condition for the admissibility of prior testimony under Evidence Rule 804(b)(1) is a showing that the declarant is unavailable as a witness. The burden rests with the proponent of the evidence. Cf. United States v. Pelton, 578 F.2d 701, 709 (8th Cir.1978); 13 ROBERT LOWELL MILLER, JR., INDIANA PRACTICE § 804.100, at 707 (2d ed.1995). Stidham has not shown or attempted to show that his testimony was unavailable and accordingly the trial court did not err by excluding his prior testimony. It is unclear whether the trial court intended to exclude the Kentucky court's order or only the testimony included as part of the offered Kentucky court file. In its Findings and Recommendations on [Stidham's] Motion the trial court found that [Stidham] has tendered an exhibit of his testimony in the [Kentucky] Court, and [Whelchel] has objected to the admission of [Stidham's] exhibit. The court then granted Whelchel's objection without mention of the Kentucky order. In the trial court and on appeal Whelchel did not directly address the admissibility of the order or address the merits of the public records exception. In any event, the order, but not the testimony, is properly before the Indiana courts as a certified copy of a court of a sister state. [4] Ind. Evidence Rule 902(1); Ind. Trial Rule 44(A)(1).