Opinion ID: 2221440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Pretrial Statement

Text: Indianapolis Detective Mary Wilson testified for the State about her investigation of the crime, which included an interview with Brown in which Brown denied raping L.B. On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to admit a transcript of this pretrial interview. The trial court refused to admit the transcript but allowed counsel to elicit Brown's denial of the rape. Brown claims that by not admitting the entire interview the court denied him his right of full and effective cross-examination of the detective. This question is nearly identical to the one posed in Washburn v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E.2d 264, where the defendant in a pretrial statement admitted having sexual relations with the victim but maintained they were consensual. Because the defendant did not testify, the statement was hearsay. The trial court refused to admit it. We affirmed that ruling, reasoning that a defendant's exculpatory pretrial statements do not carry the inherent reliability borne by admissions against his interest. Id. at 268. The privilege against self-incrimination was designed as a shield and not as a sword. In trying to admit his interview through the testimony of the investigating officer, Brown attempted to use for himself the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination as a technique for avoiding the equally hallowed constitutional principle of cross-examination. Cain v. State (1973), 261 Ind. 41, 45, 300 N.E.2d 89, 92 (conversation with girlfriend showing defendant's lack of intent to kill inadmissible). Brown was trying to introduce favorable testimony made immune from cross-examination by his own trial strategy. Id. The trial court properly refused to admit Brown's pretrial interview. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DeBRULER, GIVAN, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.