Opinion ID: 2228810
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Certain Testimony Regarding Sanity

Text: In his third enumerated issue, defendant claims reversible error resulted from the trial court's exclusion of certain testimony that he sought to present on the issue of sanity. In this regard, he contends that the trial court erroneously sustained the State's objections to the following questions asked by the defense of defendant's treating therapist: With regard to your background and your own personal experience, can you relate whether there was any incidences of children being acceptable as sexual partners in Viet Nam? [W]ith regard to your interview with him, what is it that makes you think that he was exposed to items beyond normal experience in combat? Defendant argues that these questions were relevant to his defense of post-traumatic stress disorder and that the exclusion of the testimony precluded him from posing a proper statutory defense of insanity to the jury. The trial court permitted defendant's therapist expert to provide substantial testimony regarding post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly as related to Viet Nam veterans; regarding his evaluation of the defendant; and regarding his opinion that the defendant was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Defendant did not make an offer of proof to demonstrate that the excluded testimony would have been relevant and material. The failure to make such an offer deprives the trial court of sufficient information upon which to decide whether the testimony should be admitted and thus fails to preserve the issue for review. Collins v. State (1987), Ind., 509 N.E.2d 827; Nunn v. State (1983), Ind., 450 N.E.2d 495. Defendant further asserts that the trial court erred in excluding various testimony of lay witnesses regarding comments and reactions by the defendant. Defendant specifically asserts that his mother was precluded from testifying regarding the tenor of defendant's letters and her opinion of his attitude toward the military while he was active and that his former wife was not permitted to testify as to the tenor of nightmares and specific trauma she observed the defendant experience. On appeal, defendant argues that such testimony was relevant to the conduct of defendant and admissible for the purpose of the insanity defense. Upon review of the record, we find that as to defendant's attitude toward the service, the witness answered and her answer was not stricken, and to the extent it may have been cut off by the interposed objection, no offer of proof was made to establish the nature of further testimony. Likewise there was no offer to prove with respect to the question relating to the tenor of the letters. Contrary to defendant's argument, his former wife was permitted to testify regarding defendant's feelings about leaving his family, general tenor and demeanor as expressed in letters she received while he was in Viet Nam, observed changes in personality and temperament, occurrences and general content of nightmares, and her general view of defendant's mental state. Viewing the trial court's rulings on this issue within the totality of the evidence, we are not persuaded that the trial court rulings affected the substantial rights of the defendant or were inconsistent with substantial justice so as to require reversal. Trial Rule 61, Indiana Rules of Procedure.