Opinion ID: 853233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation of Testimony

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of James Hendrix, a defense investigator called to testify regarding physical aspects of the area where the crime occurred. He stated that he had reviewed the case file and the police video of the crime scene and that he visited the crime scene on three occasions. His most recent examination of the scene was after dark, about 9:00 p.m., on July 7, 1999, about one year after the August 8, 1998, murder. When the defense attempted to elicit his testimony regarding the visibility between the point where the victim's truck had been parked and the points where the State's two eyewitnesses had been located, the trial court sustained the State's objections. Challenging the exclusion of the testimony, the defendant argues that it was relevant and based on personal knowledge, or, in the alternative, admissible as a lay opinion pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 701. The first of these two challenged rulings occurred during the defendant's direct examination of Hendrix, as follows: [Defense counsel]: Did you also conduct any experiments standing at the newspaper box looking at the point at the end where the pickup truck was parked in the police video, and have a person stand there? [Hendrix]: Yes, I did. [Prosecutor]: I object, your Honor. The Court: What is the objection? [Prosecutor]: Can we approach? (Side bar colloquy out of hearing of jury) [Defense counsel]: Stood at the newspaper box. Looked to the rear of the truck and whether he was able to recognize somebody's features. The Court: Response.... [Prosecutor]: He's not [the newspaper delivery person]. This is being proffered to the jury as expert testimony and you can't see (inaudible). The Court: Well, he's not an expert. [Defense counsel]: Butdid he see it or not. Was he able to see it. The Court: I'm going to sustain the objection. There's nothingit's at nine o'clock at night. It's not at the same time as this. We don't have anybody in any headlights. You knowit's not the sameso I'll sustain the objection. Record at 405. A trial court ruling excluding evidence may not be challenged on appeal unless a substantial right of the party is affected and the substance of the evidence was made known by an offer of proof or apparent from the context. Ind.Evidence Rule 103. Here, there was no separate offer of proof, and the context does not enable us to know what the witness would have testified had the objection been overruled. We thus have no basis to determine whether the ruling sustaining the State's objection affected a substantial right of the defendant. We decline to find error on this claim. The defendant's second assertion of improper exclusion of Hendrix's testimony relates to his testimony regarding the view from the second floor of the apartment building from which one of the State's eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the victim's truck. [Defense counsel]: Did you go into the St. Regis Apartments? [Hendrix]: Yes sir. [Defense counsel]: Did you see the location of the apartments of 207 and 208? [Hendrix]: Yes I did. [Defense counsel]: All right. [Hendrix]: In lookingduring the day atfrom the rear end of the truck from 207I could not see the front end of the truckokay. And when I went back in the early evening, it would almost be impossible to see the truck from those two locations. [Prosecutor]: I object, your Honor, to the conclusion. The Court: I'll sustain the objection. [Prosecutor]: I ask that it be stricken from the record and that the jury be asked to disregard. The Court: The Court will admonish the jury that you're to disregard the last response given by the witness and give it no consideration in your deliberations of this case. Record at 407-08. On appeal from the exclusion of evidence, our review is not limited to the grounds stated at trial, and the ruling will be upheld if supported by any valid basis. Feliciano v. State, 477 N.E.2d 86, 88 (Ind. 1985); Moritz v. State, 465 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind.App.1984). Arguing that Hendrix's perception of the crime scene occurred from an adjacent apartment, on a different day, and under different conditions, the State argues that the testimony was properly excluded because it was not relevant and not helpful to the determination of a fact in issue. It is not relevant that Hendrix's observations were made on a day different from that of the crime. The excluded testimony concerns the line of sight visibility of the murder scene from the second story of the same apartment building from which the State's eyewitness viewed the incident. The possibility of different conditions, however, is relevant to the trial court's decision. At the time of the trial court's ruling, the defendant had not established a foundation showing that there had been no substantial changes in the trees, signage, or other possible obstructions to vision. Similarly, there had been no foundation showing that view afforded by the apartment from which Hendrix conducted his observations was materially helpful to evaluate the view from which the State's witness saw the crime scene. Because these potential disparities remained, we decline to find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Hendrix's testimony regarding his observations from the second story apartment.