Opinion ID: 1560688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Victim's Diary

Text: Appellant also claims that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of portions of the victim's diary. Appellant admits that he wanted to introduce some of the diary entries, specifically those related to the victim's drug addiction and her intent to stop taking drugs. He claims that other diary entries were improper KRE 404(b) evidence. Appellant specifically raises issue with those entries related (1) to the victim's portrayal of Appellant as a drug abuser who had her get drugs for him, (2) to Appellant's desire that the victim not see her granddaughters, (3) to the victim's hatred of Appellant, and (4) to the victim's wish that Appellant would be caught and imprisoned for some unspecified illegal activity. Appellant also claims generally that this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The Commonwealth again relies on Tucker v. Commonwealth and claims that Appellant failed to preserve any error in this regard because there was no contemporaneous objection when the evidence was introduced at trial. Appellant's lawyer, however, made a pretrial oral motion in limine regarding this evidence. As we discussed above, if such a motion is specific enough and the trial judge rules on the motion with an order on the record, then the alleged error is preserved for appellate review under KRE 103(d). The mere fact that Appellant's lawyer moved in limine to suppress some of the diary entries, however, does not alone determine whether the issue is sufficiently preserved. The prosecutor filed a notice regarding the diary entries pursuant to KRE 404(c). The trial court held a pretrial hearing in January 2003 to address the evidence in the notice. During this hearing, Appellant's lawyer stated that she wanted to introduce some of the diary entries because they supported her theory that the victim's injuries were caused by staggering from being in withdrawal after stopping taking valium. When the court asked Appellant's lawyer if the entire diary was to come in, she stated: Well, I just want to let my part in. I don't know his reason for letting the other part in. We are now getting over to his motion, 404 motion, that he is wanting to show my client was an abuser of drugs from the diary . . . Constantly asked her to get the drugs for him, and that they would fight over it. He is wanting to put that in, but I don't know for what purpose. The lawyers and the judge discussed some of the questionable diary entries and the possible justifications for admission of such evidence. The judge indicated that he thought they went to the victim's state of mind, and that some of the entries that the prosecutor sought to introduce overlapped with those that Appellant wanted to introduce. The judge then asked Appellant's lawyer to compare the proposed entries. After a few minutes, Appellant's lawyer stated, Well, your Honor, I just think this is highly inflammatory, and then she pointed specifically to an entry where the victim said Appellant was not worth the price of a bullet and that she wished he would die. The judge then stated, Well, I am inclined to allow that, and noted that the statement was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The following exchange then took place: Judge: I am not going to foreclose you submitting some authority. . . . If you all want to submit anything else in terms of a memo or some case law on any of the offerings he is making. McCollough (Appellant's Lawyer): So far a lot of these we are together on. So at this point the Court is going to allow all of it in. Judge: Yes, I am going to allow the part [the prosecutor] has tendered and highlighted. I am giving you the opportunity to respond to any of these, either collectively or individually. McCollough: Okay. Right now it looks like the ones that are highlighted are the ones I would want to use anyway. There is just some additional that I would want. So I guess the day of trial Judge: Well, I would rather not wait until the day of trial. If you have some things that he is not asking for, I think we need to try to address those in advance of the trial. You all may be able to work that out on your own. If you can't, then call me and we will set something up. The judge entered a handwritten order at the end of the hearing addressing the diary and several other issues. The portion of the order dealing with the diary reads as follows: III. Admissibility of Diary Entries The Commonwealth has tendered certain entries shown by the highlighted copy admitted at the hearing. Those entries are admissible in that they are offered to prove the state of mind of the victim. The defendant also wants many of the same entries admitted to prove the victim's addiction and withdrawal from drugs and the physical consequences of the withdrawal. Counsel to confer about what will be admitted by agreement. Defense may renew objections on portions not agreed. Appellant's pretrial objection at the January 2003 hearing was not sufficient to preserve this issue for review. The oral motion was neither specific enough, since it referred only generally to the diary entries, nor was it sufficiently resolved by an order of record. Appellant's lawyer's comments at the end of the hearing and the judge's order indicate that Appellant's lawyer was in agreement with the prosecutor as to what diary entries would be admissible at trial. The judge's comment at the hearing and his notation in the order that the lawyers could address other diary entries with further objection show that the issue was not resolved and that any objections should be presented again at a later time. The motion was, in effect, deferred to trial, in which event it did not preserve the claimed error. [64] As such, the oral motion at the January 2003 hearing was insufficient to preserve this issue for appellate review. Appellant's lawyer followed the judge's order and raised the issue again by objecting to some of the diary entries in the judge's chambers on the day of trial. While in the judge's chambers, the judge asked, And you all have agreed to put in substantial parts of the diary anyway, right? The prosecutor replied, Right. Appellant's lawyer did not object to this. A few minutes later, however, Appellant's lawyer stated, Now, we have pretty much tried to agree as you suggested on the diary entries. The only objection I have  we are pretty much in agreement  one of the entries that he wants to put in is just about [how] he doesn't want me to see the girls so much anymore. I don't know what the relevance of that is. She was referring to a diary entry that reads: March 4,2001. He can't seem to stand the girls anymore. He wants cut back the x's [times] I see them . . . . I gotta do something. The judge allowed the diary entry because, he noted, it illustrated an area of conflict between Appellant and the victim. Appellant's lawyer then raised another diary entry by stating, Another one is where she states he is going out in the car now, and I hope he gets caught and gets twenty years. The entry she was referring to reads: May 27, 2001. I still wish that SOB would die. He's out in the car now. I hope he gets caught & put in jail for 20 years. God only knows how much I HATE HIM. The judge also allowed this entry, noting that it was like other diary entries that were to be admitted by agreement and that it would not lead to any real prejudice. Appellant's lawyer's objection to these two diary entries was specific enough to fall within our interpretation of KRE 103(d) above. We also note that the judge's ruling allowing the admission of the diary entries was an order of record. The record, however, indicates that Appellant agreed as to the other diary entries. As such, we hold that only the alleged error regarding these two diary entries was preserved for our review.
We now turn to the merits of Appellant's claim as to the two diary entries that were preserved for our review. The diary entry relating to the victim's grandchildren was admissible. It does not appear to refer to an act; thus it does not fall within the purview of KRE 404(b). But even if we were to read it as falling under that rule, we agree with the trial judge that it is further evidence of the growing conflict between Appellant and the victim. As such, it is evidence of a motive for the crime, which makes it potentially admissible under KRE 404(b). In determining whether to admit such evidence, the trial court is still bound by KRE 403's balancing test. The diary entry related only to a portion of the overall cause of the conflict between Appellant and the victim, but it was not repetitive or cumulative because it related to an aspect of the conflict not covered by the other diary entries. Furthermore, it was not more prejudicial than probative. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this diary entry. This leaves the entry regarding a possible crime being committed by Appellant and describing how the victim hated Appellant and wished he would die. The Commonwealth attempts to justify introduction of this entry under the rule of completeness in KRE 106. The rule of completeness, however, does not necessarily justify the introduction of diary entries. [65] Several diary entries were omitted by agreement of the parties, and there is little chance that the rest of the diary would have presented a misleading impression absent this entry. Furthermore, the entry does not appear to fall under the exceptions to KRE 404(b). Though the entry is vague, there is little doubt that it refers to criminal activity of some sort committed by Appellant. Though the entry as a whole further illustrates the conflict between Appellant and the victim, and thus could be considered indirect evidence related to his motive, the criminal activity referenced does not appear to fall under any of the KRE 404(b) exceptions. The introduction of the entry, with its solitary and vague reference to criminal activity, however, does not appear to have been prejudicial, especially when considered in light of the other diary entries that Appellant agreed to introduce and that make reference to Appellant's illicit drug use and a growing conflict with the victim. As such, even if this diary entry was introduced improperly, it was harmless error.