Opinion ID: 1981028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of Hearsay

Text: Before Isaacs took the stand to testify in his own defense, the State asked the court to expand an order in limine to prohibit Isaacs or any other defense witness from introducing any statements made by Maureen. The court granted the motion. Isaacs' defense was self-defense. He testified in detail about the incident leading to Maureen's death and attempted to relate the conversation between them. The court permitted Isaacs to testify about what he said to Maureen but sustained objections by the State on statements made by Maureen to Isaacs. The jury was excused, and Isaacs made an offer to prove. Isaacs said he had arranged with Maureen to visit her on the morning in question so that he could pick up and pay for some items he had agreed to buy from her. Isaacs and Maureen went to the basement to retrieve two boxes. He started carrying one of the boxes upstairs with Maureen in front of him. When Maureen reached the top of the stairs, he asked if she had contacted her attorney to see about lowering his support payments. Isaacs testified that she became angry and replied, No, I haven't. He also testified that when he asked Maureen if she had been drinking, she replied, It ain't none of your business what I do, and she repeated that statement after he told her, Here it is seven o'clock in the morning and you're already drunk. Isaacs testified that when he asked her to get out of the way and let him leave, Maureen said, Where you gonna go? He told her he was going to get as far away from her as he could. Maureen then replied, I knew that you were going to do this. Isaacs replied, Do what? Maureen said, I knew you were gonna go out there and keep the kids. Isaacs testified he then said, I told you from the beginning, I wasn't gonna do that. Maureen replied, I don't believe you, and then pushed on the box resulting in both of them falling to the bottom of the stairs. Once Isaacs collected himself, he sat up and Maureen said to him, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you! Maureen did not say anything else to him until she was sitting on top of him, hitting him in the face. She kept saying, I'm not going to let you take my babies! Isaacs testified that when Maureen started choking him, he hit her on the head with a table leg four or five times to get her off of him, and when she started to back off, he pushed her as hard as he could. She hit the stairwell wall hard and landed sitting down. Isaacs explained that at this point he started to leave, but Maureen repeatedly said, Don't leave. The State objected to Isaacs' testimony regarding Maureen's statements on the grounds it was inherently unreliable, self-serving hearsay. Isaacs argued it was admissible to prove Maureen's state of mind. The trial court concluded that the statements could not be admitted to prove the victim's state of mind because the victim's state of mind was irrelevant to Isaacs's claim of self-defense. Hearsay is testimony or written evidence of a statement made out of court being offered in court as an assertion to show the truth of the matters asserted therein. Smith v. State (1986), Ind., 490 N.E.2d 300. It does not appear that many, if any, of the statements attributed to Maureen were offered for this purpose. They were descriptive of the circumstances presented to Isaacs which resulted in the victim's death. See, e.g., id. at 302. The statements the victim made to Isaacs were as pertinent as the statements he made to her in relation to his claim of self-defense. While it was probably error to exclude this evidence, we are satisfied that any error was harmless because its impact on the jury, in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Fleener v. State (1995), Ind., 656 N.E.2d 1140. [1] After all, even though Isaacs was not able to introduce the victim's exact statements, he was not prevented from presenting his defense. He testified at length about the confrontation and the victim's alleged acts of aggression. He also succeeded in telling the jury that the victim was angry and was provoked by him into a physical confrontation. Moreover, he testified that the victim had pushed him, hit him, threw things at him and attempted to choke him. Isaacs' testimony regarding the victim's alleged comments would have done little to enhance the detailed picture painted by Isaac's own description. Excluding the victim's non-threatening statements such as, No I haven't, It ain't none of your business what I do, Where you gonna go?, and I knew you were gonna go out there and keep the kids did little by way of substance given all the remaining evidence. After all, Isaacs admitted that he and the victim were involved in an altercation, that he beat her in the head four or five times with a table leg, and that when she started to back off he shoved her as hard as he could against the wall. Such a statement implies that the Maureen was attempting to retreat and was sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Isaacs did not act in self-defense. [2] Furthermore, statements made by other witnesses demonstrated that Isaacs and Maureen had an unstable relationship, and a number of friends and relatives noted that Isaacs had a volatile personality. Testimony also revealed that in the week before her death, Isaacs harassed Maureen and a friend at a party, and the victim told friends that Isaacs had threatened to kill her after their children left to visit their grandfather. Isaacs admitted he did not call for any assistance or report the accident. Instead, he went to his grandfather's house and showered, then went to work as though nothing happened. He also admitted discarding evidence at his place of work, explaining that he hid a bag containing blood soaked clothing, towels and blankets. The items were found at his place of work, under a three-foot high stack of tarps. The bag included a pair of jeans belonging to Isaacs. In one pocket, the police found a metal ball from the table leg that was used to beat the victim and a piece of the victim's scalp and hair. Considering the tremendous weight of the evidence, the trial court's exclusion of the victim's statements was of minimal consequence. Appellant was able to present amply his claim of self-defense and the error did not affect Isaac's substantial rights.