Opinion ID: 1155936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: statement of william duncan

Text: William Duncan was 17 years of age, attending high school, and living with appellant and his mother at the time of this incident. He was questioned by the investigator before trial concerning the death of his mother on several occasions but did not then state that he believed Dr. Schmunk had killed her. Then, during the trial, he testified: Q. Why did you leave Douglas, Wyoming? A. Because of the suspicions of my father killing my mother. There was an objection and the court stated: I would overrule the objection anyway. The State argues that Billy Duncan's statement that he suspected that his father had killed his mother was properly admitted into evidence because Billy had personal knowledge of the matter as required by Rule 602 W.R.E.; that it concerned his state of mind, and was not an opinion of appellant's guilt but was a statement of fact. Appellant contends that the context of the statement was such that the jury would clearly understand that Billy was stating his personal belief, suspicion that Dr. Schmunk had killed his mother. It is a close question, but assuming appellant to be correct, it would have been best if the trial court had sustained the objection.