Opinion ID: 2183480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Threats Made to State Witness as Hearsay

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to strike John Wilson's testimony that threats against his family led him to make a prior inconsistent statement. Wilson was shot during the robbery. During direct examination, he testified that he knew the defendant's family and that he had talked with defendant's step-father, Fred Roland: Q. Have you spoken to Fred Roland since the robbery? A. Yes. Q. Where did you speak to Fred Roland? A. My house. Q. Did you speak to Fred Roland about your ability to identify Ralph Fox's voice? A. Yes. Q. What did you talk about? A. I told him I could have been mistaken. Q. Are you saying to me now you were mistaken? A. No, I ain't mistaken. They threatened my family, so I just said that, so they would get off. Q. You are under oath now. A. Somebody told me they threatened. Q. Can you swear under oath that it was Ralph Fox's voice you heard at Baker's Family Restaurant that morning? A. Yes. The court overruled counsel's motion to strike the reference to threats. It ruled that the testimony was admissible solely to show that Wilson thought threats were made, but not to establish the threats actually occurred. Appellant asserts that the reference to threats was inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is defined as an extrajudicial statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein. Ashley v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d 768. In the case at bar, the prosecutor was aware that Wilson's credibility was subject to impeachment based upon a prior inconsistent statement he made to the appellant's step-father. The prosecutor apparently chose to reveal the circumstances surrounding this prior inconsistent statement and thus counteract any possible impeachment. Obviously, Wilson's statement that someone told him that an unidentified party threatened his family is hearsay. As hearsay, it was inadmissible for the purpose of establishing that threats were made against his family. However, the testimony was admitted for the limited purpose of establishing Wilson's state of mind at the time he made his prior inconsistent statement. It therefore falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, one which permits testimony explaining a witness' state of mind. E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence (3d ed. 1984) § 295.