Opinion ID: 2196234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusion of Defendant's Statement

Text: The defendant next argues the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding a statement he had made. The defendant's mother testified as a defense witness at trial. On her direct examination, the following exchange occurred: Q. And then what happened? A. I asked him where his truck was at and he said his truck was over by Bob Savage[']s ... would I take him over and get it. I said... . I asked him what the truck was doing over there and he said that J.D. called and... . MR. BROWN. Objection, your Honor. It's a self-serving declaration of the defendant. It's not admissible. The trial court sustained the objection. The defendant later made an offer to prove that the defendant's mother would testify that the defendant told her that J.D. Hurst, a friend of his, had called and told him where he would find his truck. The defendant contends the statement should not have been excluded because it fit within the res gestae hearsay exception. He argues that [t]he act of Mrs. Lewis taking the defendant to get his truck was of extreme importance to the State's case and must be considered a part of the res gestae of the burglary charge against Lewis. Statements within the res gestae exception are those simultaneously uttered at the time of the occurrence, transaction or accident at issue. Hernandez v. State (1982), Ind., 439 N.E.2d 625, 628. In determining whether or not the statements in the case at bar were a part of the res gestae it is useful to consider whether the circumstances of the case were such to preclude the possibility of a shrewd and self-calculated answer. Arnold v. State (1978), 178 Ind. App. 614, 618, 383 N.E.2d 461, 463. The occurrence at issue here is the burglary. The defendant's retrieval of his truck is not part of that occurrence such that his statement regarding how he knew where the truck was could be admitted as part of the res gestae. In addition, the possibility of a shrewd and self-calculated answer was not precluded, but was in fact facilitated by the passage of time. The statement was properly excluded. See Shelton v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 738.