Opinion ID: 1265006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Concerning Pennisi's Travel Plans

Text: Mrs. Pennisi testified, without objection, that Pennisi left their home at 6:55 p. m. on Sunday, 15 June, that he took no suitcase but carried a shaving kit only, that prior to his departure she had some discussion with him in which he referred to a business trip, and that he was planning to go on a business trip to Wilmington, Delaware. Thereafter, over objection, she was permitted to testify that she expected him to return on Monday and that he was going on this trip with the defendant to see about an investment that he had made in that area. Subsequently, without objection, she testified that she became worried when her husband did not return Monday night. The defendant assigns the admission of all of this testimony as error. It was not error to admit that portion of it to which no objection was interposed. State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E.2d 839; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 27. As to testimony that Mrs. Pennisi expected her husband to return on Monday, it is sufficient to note that, subsequently, she testified, without objection, that she was worried when he did not return Monday night and on the following day advised her neighbor that he had not returned. It is the rule in this jurisdiction that the benefit of an objection, seasonably made, is lost if thereafter substantially the same evidence is admitted without objection. State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328, 336, 163 S.E.2d 353; Shelton v. Southern Railroad Co., 193 N.C. 670, 139 S.E. 232; Smith v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 163 N.C. 143, 79 S.E. 433; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 30. Having testified that her husband left the house at 6:55 p. m. on Sunday, 15 June, prior to which he had made reference to a business trip, the solicitor asked, Who did he say he would take this trip with? Over objection, she replied, He was going with Mr. Gloyd Vestal. The solicitor then asked, Where did he indicate that he and Mr. Vestal were going? Over objection, she was permitted to testify, That afternoon he said that he was going to Wilmington, Delaware, with Mr. Gloyd Vestal to see about an investment that he had made in that area. Of course, this testimony by Mrs. Pennisi as to her husband's travel plans was hearsay. The twofold basis for exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay evidence is necessity and a reasonable probability of truthfulness. As Professor Morgan has said in 31 Yale Law Journal 229, 231, If it is to be admitted, it must be because there are some good reasons for not requiring the appearance of the utterer and some circumstance of the utterance which performs the functions of the oath and the cross-examination. See also, Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., §§ 1420-1423; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 144. The subsequent death of Pennisi does not, of itself, make these statements by him admissible. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 674. It does, however, establish the first basis of an exception to the hearsay rulenecessity; i. e., the unavailability of the declarant as a witness. The circumstances under which the statements were made supply the reasonable probability of trustworthiness. It is a matter of everyday experience that a man leaving his home, or his business establishment, for an out-of-town trip will, for domestic and business purposes, inform his family or business associates as to his destination, traveling companion, purpose and anticipated time of return. Such statements customarily have no purpose other than the orderly arrangement of his domestic and business affairs and their proper handling in his absence. It is this circumstance which supplies the required probability of truthfulness. These statements by Pennisi to his wife as he was preparing to leave the house are relevant to the prosecution of the defendant for his murder, since they, if true, show that Pennisi left the house to join the defendant on a trip to Wilmington, Delaware, concerning a business matter in which they were interested. The State had previously introduced evidence of a statement by the defendant to Police Officer Jenkins prior to the time Pennisi's body was discovered. According to this testimony, the defendant acknowledged that Pennisi had come to his home at approximately 7:30 p. m. on 15 June and had requested the defendant to go with him to New York in connection with some problems involving Pennisi's parents. The testimony of Mrs. Pennisi, as to the destination and purpose of the trip contemplated by the deceased, was relevant to the questions of motive and of whether the defendant had truthfully narrated the substance of his conversation with Pennisi when talking to the investigating police officer. It would, of course, be for the jury to determine which, if either, was the correct statement as to the destination and purpose of the trip. In Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706, suit was brought on a policy of life insurance and was defended on the ground that the insured, Hillmon, was not dead but, pursuant to a conspiracy to defraud the insurer, had killed his traveling companion, Walters, and left his body to be found at their camp site. The United States Supreme Court, on appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff-beneficiary, granted a new trial for error in excluding, as evidence, letters written by Walters to his sister and his fiancee, in which he wrote, I expect to leave Wichita on or about March the 5th with a certain Mr. Hillmon, a sheep trader, for Colorado, or parts unknown to me. The Court said: [W]henever the intention is of itself a distinct and material fact in a chain of circumstances, it may be proved by contemporaneous oral or written declarations of the party. In the Hillmon case, supra, the Court quoted with approval from the opinion of Chief Justice Beasley, speaking for the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, in Hunter v. State, 40 N.J.L. 495. In that case, Hunter was indicted for the murder of Armstrong. The Court held there was no error in the admission of an oral statement by Armstrong to his son, in Philadelphia on the afternoon preceding the night of his murder, and a letter, written at the same time to his wife, each stating that Armstrong was going with Hunter to Camden on business, Chief Justice Beasley said: In the ordinary course of things, it was the usual information that a man about leaving home would communicate, for the convenience of his family, the information of his friends, or the regulation of his business.    If it be said that such notice of an intention of leaving home could have been given without introducing in it the name of Mr. Hunter, the obvious answer to the suggestion, I think, is that a reference to the companion who is to accompany the person leaving is as natural a part of the transaction as is any other incident or quality of it. If it is legitimate to show by a man's own declarations that he left his home to be gone a week, or for a certain destination, which seems incontestable, why may it not be proved in the same way that a designated person was to bear him company? In State v. Journey, 115 Conn. 344, 161 A. 515, the defendant was on trial for the murder of one Buda, whose wife was permitted, over objection, to testify that when her husband left the house on the morning of the day of his death, he said he was going to work for Journey. In holding this was not error the Court said: A declaration indicating a present intention to do a particular act in the immediate future, made in apparent good faith and not for self-serving purposes, is admissible to prove that the act was in fact performed. It is admissible, not as a part of the res gestae but as a fact relevant to a fact in issue. To the same effect are: People v. Alcalde, 24 Cal.2d 177, 148 P.2d 627 (murder victim's statement that she was going out with the defendant on the evening of her murder); Smith v. State, 148 Ga. 467, 96 S.E. 1042 (homicide victim's statement to his wife, a short time before leaving home, that he and the defendant were going over to the hollow to hide a still); People v. Fritch, 170 Mich. 258, 136 N.W. 493 (statement by victim of murder by abortion of her intent to submit to such operation); Commonwealth v. Trefethen, 157 Mass. 180, 31 N.E. 961 (statement by deceased of her intention to commit suicide held admissible though not part of the res gestae). In an exhaustive annotation in 113 ALR 268, it is said at pages 273, 275 and 288, with numerous supporting citations: Evidence of the statements of a person since deceased with reference to the purpose or destination of a trip or journey, no matter how short, that he was about to make, has been admitted as competent in a considerable number of actions, both civil and criminal in character.       In 3 Jones on Evidence, § 1220, it is said that the declarations of a person when starting out on a journey, as to the destination or purpose of such journey, have sometimes been held admissible as characterizing the journey and as part of the res gestae. And this theory of res gestae is by far the most popular theory of admission, though possibly not as well reasoned as the theory that the declarations are admissible as original evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule.    The theory of admission which has the approval of eminent text-writers is that statements made by a person since deceased, with reference to the purpose or destination of a journey or trip that he was about to take, are admissible as original evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule allowing proof of intention or motive. Treatises and other writings supporting the admission of such statements by deceased persons as an exception to the hearsay rule, independent of the res gestae theory, include: Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed. § 1725; McCormick on Evidence, § 270; Wharton on Criminal Evidence, § 289; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed. § 162; Professor Morgan's article in 31 Yale Law Journal 229, 233; Barrington, Note, 40 N.C. Law Review 812. In Gassaway v. Gassaway & Owen, Inc., 220 N.C. 694, 18 S.E.2d 120, and in Little v. Power Brake Co., 255 N.C. 451, 121 S.E.2d 889, this Court held that statements by a deceased person as to the purpose and destination of the trip, upon which he was killed in an automobile accident, were not admissible in evidence in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act because not part of the res gestae. In the Gassaway case, supra, the statement was made the night before the start of the trip and was heard by the wife and daughter of the deceased. Justice Barnhill, later Chief Justice, said the statement was not part of the res gestae because not connected with the immediate departure. The question in the Gassaway case, however, was whether the declarant was traveling to attend to his company's business as an employee within the protection of the Act or as an executive officer not within the protection of the Act. The statement in question threw no light whatever on that matter. In the Little case, Justice Parker, later Chief Justice, said the statement of the deceased in a telephone call to his wife, approximately half an hour before he left his motel to start on the journey which ended in the fatal accident, was not so interwoven into his departure that it is vested with the significance of a fact, so as to constitute a part of the res gestae,  and was properly excluded. However, as shown in the opinion, the statement in question did not disclose where the customer, on whom the declarant intended to call, resided, and there was other evidence to indicate that he may already have been visited before the accident and that, at the time he was killed, the deceased was driving further to visit relatives. In Coley v. Phillips, 224 N.C. 618, 31 S.E. 2d 757, this Court said: For a declaration to be competent as part of the res gestae, at least three qualifying conditions must concur: (a) The declaration must be of such spontaneous character as to be a sufficient safeguard of its trustworthiness; that is, preclude the likelihood of reflection and fabrication;    (b) it must be contemporaneous with the transaction, or so closely connected with the main fact as to be practically inseparable therefrom   ; and (c) must have some relevancy to the fact sought to be proved.       No rule of universal application can be devised as to the time element; but the principle of relevancy to the fact sought to be proved by it admits of no relaxation. (Emphasis added.) More specifically with reference to statements as to travel plans, it is said in an annotation in 163 A.L.R. 15, at page 21: A class of declarations which are often remote from the accident, yet so linked with it in continuity of action and proof as to be termed a part of the res gestae, are those which fall under the principle that if one, when about to depart on a journey, declares his intention as to his course of travel, his purpose, or his destination, the declaration is admissible as evidence that he followed that intention or purpose. Strictly speaking, the statement may be said to be part of the res gestae of the departure, but it is usually spoken of as part of the res gestae of the accident in general.    Under this general principle, the declaration, to be admissible, must have been made at the time of departure or in preparation therefor. (Emphasis added.) In the present case, the statement by Pennisi was part of his preparation for departure. The nature of the statement supplies the probability of truth, which is the only function of the element of spontaniety mentioned in Coley v. Phillips, supra. We see no plausible basis for holding such a statement admissible if shouted back to the wife as the car leaves the driveway, but inadmissible if told to her at the dinner table or while packing the traveler's suitcase. The sound basis for its admission is not the res gestae doctrine, but the exception to the hearsay rule permitting the admission of declarations of a decedent to show his intention, when the intention is relevant per se and the declaration is not so unreasonably remote in time as to suggest the possibility of a change of mind. In State v. Dula, 61 N.C. 211, the appeal was from a conviction of murder. The body of the deceased was found, several weeks after her disappearance, near the Bates place. A witness was permitted to testify that, as the deceased rode by on the day she disappeared, she told the witness she was on her way to the Bates place; that the prisoner had returned just before day, was going another way and she expected to meet him at the Bates place. Chief Justice Pearson said: The conversation between Mrs. Scott and the deceased ought not to have been admitted as evidence. At all events, no part of it except that the deceased said she was going to the Bates place. The reason given was that her statement as to where the defendant was and that she expected to meet him could not be considered a part of the acts of the deceased; i. e., not a part of her act of riding along the road. On retrial, the statement, as to the destination of the deceased only, was admitted but, thereafter, the State withdrew it and the jury was instructed to disregard it. On the second appeal, 61 N.C. 440, it was said, The evidence was admissible as part of the act; i. e., the act of the deceased in riding along the road. The Dula case is distinguishable from the one now before us. First, the declaration of the deceased in that case as to the time of Dula's return and as to the route by which Dula was traveling to the Bates place has no counterpart in the statement by Pennisi in the case before us. Second, as to the declaration that the deceased expected to meet Dula at the Bates placethe portion of the statement relevant to the matter before usthe statement was made to an acquaintance casually passed en route. There was no showing of any reason for making it which would supply a reasonable probability of truthfulness. The statement by Pennisi, on the contrary, was made to the witness, his wife, under circumstances, which in and of themselves, supply a reasonable probability of truth. It is the normal, natural, customary routine for a man leaving his home, or office, upon an out-of-town trip to inform some member of his family, or an employee or business associate, of where he is going, with whom and when he will return. Of course, the particular declarant on the particular occasion may falsely state these matters to his wife or to his business associate. The credibility of his statement on the particular occasion is always open to question, but that is a question for the jury. The fact that in the overwhelming preponderance of such instances the statement is true, because it has no purpose or significance except to promote the orderly conduct of the declarant's domestic or business affairs, supplies that reasonable probability of truth in the particular instance which justifies the court in permitting the jury to hear the statement and determine its truth or falsity. The Dula decision was handed down by this Court more than a century ago. None of the authorities cited above was then in existence. The only exception to the hearsay rule discussed by our distinguished predecessors in their consideration of the Dula case was res gestae. We do not now reject the precedent of Dula insofar as the res gestae exception is concerned. We hold the testimony as to the statement by Pennisi, now under discussion, admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule developed and accepted, by other courts and by the eminent scholars in the field of Evidence cited above, since the Dula case was decided. No branch of the law should be less firmly bound to a past century than the rules of Evidence. The purpose of the rules of Evidence is to assist the jury to arrive at the truth. Exceptions to the hearsay rule, evolved by the experience and wisdom of our predecessors for that purpose, should not be transformed by us into rigid molds precluding all testimony not capable of being squeezed neatly into one of them. The Dula case can no longer be deemed authoritative in the factual situation before us. The admissibility of Mrs. Pennisi's testimony as to her husband's statement concerning his travel plans is not predicated upon Vestal's contrary statement to the investigating police officer, though it is relevant to that matter also. Her testimony would have been admissible had Vestal made no statement whatever. Pennisi's statement, so recounted by her, was admissible to show that Pennisi had the intent to go to Wilmington to see about an investment he had made in that area, that Pennisi had the intent to go on that trip with Vestal, that Pennisi left home on that mission. It is competent evidence indicating that for such purpose Pennisi reached and entered into the company of Vestal on the night the State's evidence tends to show he was killed in Vestal's warehouse. It does not show, presumably was not offered to show and certainly would not be competent to show, that Vestal intended to go to Wilmington or set out upon such a trip. It is immaterial that Pennisi never reached Wilmington. In this case his arrival there is not the fact at issue. What is at issue is his association with Vestal that evening in Greensboro. The statement is relevant upon that matter and the circumstances under which it was made clothe it with a sufficient probability of truthfulness to permit the jury to hear it and to determine its truth or falsity. Consequently, there was no error in permitting Mrs. Pennisi to testify as to Pennisi's travel plans. Consequently, there was no error in permitting Mrs. Pennisi to testify as to her husband's statement concerning his plan to travel with the defendant to Wilmington, Delaware, to see about an investment.