Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission Under the State of Mind Exception of Fahey's Statements of Facts Remembered or Believed is Harmless Error

Text: The hearsay testimony recounting Fahey's statements is found in the testimony of a number of witnesses. These include a psychiatrist and several psychologists [166] and also several of Fahey's friends. [167] In addition, Fahey's emails to Capano were read to the jury, [168] as were portions of Fahey's diary, which were read from the stand by Fahey's sister, Kathleen Fahey-Hosey. As we have found, certain of the statements made by Fahey to her friends should not have been admitted under the state of mind exception because they recounted facts remembered or believed. Similarly, analyzed under the state of mind exception of D.R.E. 803(3), certain of the statements made to the psychotherapists are inadmissible for the same reason. We conclude that, whether or not the statements to the psychotherapists are admissible under D.R.E. 803(4), [169] the admission of these statements, together with the inadmissible hearsay statements made to the friends, constitutes harmless error because these statements are cumulative of statements admitted under stipulation. The following harmless error analysis therefore assumes that the statements made to psychotherapists should not have been admitted to the extent they contain facts remembered or believed. [170] Capano focuses on four categories of inadmissible evidence that were each presented through the testimony of one or more of the witnesses listed above: (1) the gift incident testimony that Fahey said Capano broke into her apartment at night and took back gifts that he had previously given her; (2) references to Capano stalking Fahey; (3) a discussion of Fahey's fear of being kidnapped by Capano; and (4) the garage incident, in which Capano locked Fahey in a garage for several hours while they argued. [171] We agree that, standing alone, the hearsay testimony about these factual incidents is a fact remembered or believed and is outside the Rule 803(3) exception. But, crucially, some of Fahey's hearsay statements were also presented through testimony to which Capano stipulated. Specifically, Capano stipulated to the admission of three sets of evidence: (1) Fahey's diary, (2) emails between Capano and Fahey, and (3) the testimony of Kim Lynch-Horstmann. [172] Of course, the admission of this evidence is not an issue in this appeal, but the effect of the admission of this evidence by stipulation is critical to our harmless error analysis. The issue is whether the erroneous admission of the four categories of evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [173] We must determine whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. [174] The State argues that the erroneously admitted evidence is similar to the evidence admitted pursuant to stipulation, and thus is not prejudicial. Capano argues that the four categories of evidence at issue add new and damaging detail and thus are not cumulative of the subject matter of the stipulated evidence. Specifically, Capano argues that this evidence was grossly prejudicial, that the State had a weak case based on circumstantial evidence, and that to fill the void, the prosecution relied on Fahey's extrajudicial statements that Capano was stalking her and was violently jealous.... Capano supports this view by contending that in closing argument the prosecutor emphasized the theme of Capano being controlling and manipulative. Capano also argues that the statements were especially prejudicial because they came from a sympathetic victim. We have concluded that the admission of the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because it is cumulative of the stipulated testimony and therefore had minimal prejudicial impact. [175] We begin by examining the substance of the stipulated testimony. [176] In her last diary entry, Fahey called Capano a controlling, manipulative, insecure, jealous maniac. [177] In another entry, Fahey described Capano as cold and disinterested, stating that he called and was nasty, that he raised his voice at me and was furious with me. [178] Fahey wrote: I was afraid he would fly off the handle again. [179] Lengthy stipulated testimony from Lynch-Horstmann added to this depiction of Capano. Through Lynch-Horstmann's testimony, the jury heard that Fahey viewed Capano as angry and obsessive. [180] According to Lynch-Horstmann, Fahey felt she had to escape. She was very aware that the obsessiveness of it was weighing very heavily on her shoulders. And sometimes she said I feel like I have to move out of the state to get away from him. [181] Importantly, the stipulated testimony also described several specific incidents between Capano and Fahey, adding considerable detail to this picture of a controlling, manipulative, insecure, jealous maniac. For instance, in an email message to Capano, Fahey wrote: Tommy, you scared me this weekend, starting with Friday and all the calls you placed. It really freaks me out when you call every half hour.... [182] Lynch-Horstmann's testimony related numerous specific incidents centering on these themes. She testified: There was an event in Delaware that Annie was very excited about going to with Michael called  I think it was the Grand Gala. And Tom had threatened her that he was going to be there, and she was very afraid that he was going to expose their relationship at this event. [183] Other testimony given by Lynch-Horstmann focused on Capano's manipulation of Fahey and the volatility of their relationship. For example, she related that Fahey told her that Capano humiliated Fahey by talking about their affair to a priest at a church Fahey attended, causing her to stop attending that church. [184] Lynch-Horstmann also testified that according to Fahey, Capano would attack [Fahey's] insecurities and refer to her as white trash and tell her that she should be lucky that he's even going out with her because of who he is and what he could buy and where she came from. [185] She testified that Capano was giving Fahey a hard time about staying at the shore in a house where other men would be staying. According to her testimony, Fahey called me ... to say ... that Capano had just left and they had had a huge fight because he did not want her going to the shore.... [T]his fight ensued and she was too exhausted to make this trip to the shore. [186] We must examine the non-stipulated, erroneously admitted hearsay testimony in light of this extensive stipulated testimony reflecting on themes of fear, harassment, obsession, and control. Turning to the first of the four categories of evidence not admitted pursuant to stipulation, Capano focuses on the prejudicial effect of what is known as the gift incident, which Capano refers to as an especially noteworthy instance of prejudicial evidence. According to Dr. Johnson, Capano came to [Fahey's] apartment quite late at night ... bolted the door shut and kept her inside for, my recollection was, three or four hours during which time he yelled at her, threatened to expose their relationship. [187] Capano then took many of the gifts that he had given her out of the apartment and then eventually returned them. [188] Dr. Sullivan gave a similar account of this incident as reported to her by Fahey. She added that Fahey told her that she was too frozen to call for help, and that Capano grabbed her arm and pushed her against the wall. [189] Jill Morrison, another of Fahey's friends, testified that one night he came up the fire escape and they had a fight and he took back the gifts. [190] This testimony is largely cumulative of the stipulated testimony described above. The incident itself was introduced by stipulation through Lynch-Horstmann's testimony. She testified that Capano tried to remove all of the gifts that he had given Annie from her apartment because he didn't want another man watching the TV that he had given her, the clothes  seeing Annie wear the clothes that he had given her, so he removed a lot of those things from her apartment. [191] Thus the jury knew that he had come in and taken away the gifts he had given to her. Capano argues that the psychologist testimony regarding the gift incident is significantly more damaging than the stipulated testimony because it depicts Capano acting violently  breaking into the apartment, grabbing Fahey's arm and pushing her. This argument calls for a degree of parsing that is not realistic in view of the extensive amount of similar, stipulated testimony. The incident depicts Capano as controlling, angry, and ultimately menacing. As explained above, this is just what the jury had heard through Fahey's diary entries, the emails, and Lynch-Horstmann. The jury had heard that Fahey was literally scared of Capano  afraid he would fly off the handle again  and had also heard about several specific fights. Capano's argument that the gift incident testimony truly stands out from the numerous other accounts of his relationship with Fahey is not convincing. The three other categories of evidence at issue also carry minimal risk of prejudice because they are cumulative of the stipulated testimony. The first of these is stalking testimony. This category includes the testimony of Siobhan Sullivan that Fahey said of Capano, He's fucking stalking me. [192] It also includes testimony from Fahey's doctors. For example, Dr. Kaye testified that if [Capano] was stalking her, sending her too many emails, parking his car in front of her home and she would notice it, not want him there, then you would expect to see ... flare-ups in the eating disorder. [193] Capano would show up unexpectedly, so that she would fear him appearing at times where she wasn't ready to greet him in a public place. [194] He would also come over to the house uninvited, wanting to get in, making a scene such that he was allowed in. [195] The stalking testimony, exemplified by the above excerpts, is also cumulative of the stipulated testimony. Apart from the characterization of Capano's actions, i.e., apart from the use of the word stalking to describe them, this testimony simply paints the same picture of obsession that was testified to by Lynch-Horstmann. The following excerpt from her stipulated testimony suffices to make the point: He would e-mail her at work all the time, and they were kind of obsessive e-mails.... [Capano] [w]ould be upset that she wouldn't see him or wouldn't talk to him. At one point he threatened to commit suicide because he said he couldn't live without her. So there was a lot of pressure on Annie because he was saying  there was a lot of pressure on Annie. He was saying I left my wife so we could be together. So there was a lot about the e-mails. [196] As noted above, Fahey's email to Capano also reflected this theme of obsession, stating, Tommy, you scared me this weekend, starting with Friday and all the calls you placed. It really freaks me out when you call every half hour.... The next category of evidence Capano focuses on is Dr. Sullivan's statement that Fahey told her she was very concerned about getting kidnapped and she thought that it was Capano who might kidnap her. [197] Again, in light of the stipulated testimony, the vague and isolated discussion of kidnapping is essentially cumulative and harmless. Through Fahey's diary, the emails, and Lynch-Horstmann's testimony, the jury heard repeated testimony to the effect that Fahey was genuinely frightened of Capano. Moreover, this brief testimony appears to have been coaxed out of Fahey by Dr. Sullivan, who encouraged Fahey to muse about her fears, in a way that lessens the likelihood of prejudicial impact. [198] The final category of evidence involves the garage incident testified to by Morrison: Yes, she told me of an incident where he had picked her up and took her back to his house into the garage and locked the doors and would not let her out of the garage while they argued and he made attempts to keep the relationship together. This was extremely frightening to Anne Marie because she had a fear of being locked in small dark places, and it was very upsetting for her. [199] Again, this testimony is akin to the stipulated testimony. Fahey's diary, the emails, and Lynch-Horstmann's testimony portrayed Capano as a controlling, manipulative, insecure, jealous maniac. The garage incident simply portrays the type of harassing behavior that permeated the stipulated testimony, such as call[ing] and leav[ing] maybe 15 messages on her answering machine in a two-hour period of time, [and telling her] that she had to talk to him, why wasn't she calling him back, that he needed to talk to her. [200] The stipulated testimony also makes several significant and detailed references to furious and exhaust[ing] fighting. [201] The additional detail of Fahey being locked in the garage with Capano cannot have affected the outcome of Capano's trial. The garage incident, as well as the other evidence discussed above, is essentially cumulative and therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, we note that the limiting instructions issued by the trial court reduced the risk that any of this testimony would be a basis for inferring Capano's guilt. [202] We conclude that the trial court erroneously admitted under the state of mind exception hearsay testimony from Fahey's psychotherapists and friends concerning specific incidents and beliefs described by Fahey. But, in view of the extensive and damaging hearsay evidence to which Capano stipulated at trial, we conclude that the erroneously admitted evidence was largely cumulative and that the trial court's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [203]