Opinion ID: 1652376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: Admissibility of Presentence Report

Text: Morrow challenges the trial court's admission into evidence of a presentence report. The state read portions of this report during its cross examination of Dr. Cuneo, a defense witness who testified about Morrow's drug dependency. The document contained reports from Morrow's probation and parole officers indicating that he has been unable to conform to the law since the age of thirteen. Morrow argues that this report was inadmissible because: the report was hearsay, the state failed to show that Dr. Cuneo had seen or relied upon it, it constituted incompetent opinion evidence, and the state failed to give notice of the report. Although he now raises this panoply of challenges to the report, the only objection Morrow raised at trial regarded the state's alleged failure to lay a foundation showing that Dr. Cuneo had seen or relied upon the report. The following questioning transpired, between Dr. Cuneo and the prosecutor, after the trial court told the state to lay a foundation showing that Dr. Cuneo had seen the presentence report. Q: You indicated you had received some records from the Public Defender's Office; is that correct? A: Correct. Q: And there were some records that you indicated you got from the prison; is that correct also? A: Correct. Q: But those particular records you did not base any opinion on; is that correct? Or formulate your diagnosis from those prison records; is that correct? A: I told you at that time the diagnosis of drug abuse had nothing to do with those records. I also told you I reviewed those records because ifin fact I wanted to know if he was in any type of psychiatric facility. Q: Now, this Missouri Department of Board of Probation and Parole report, that was contained within those records that you received [but] didn't make your decision on or base your opinion; is that correct? A: Correct. - Q: The only time he's been able to remain trouble free since he was thirteen is when he has been confined. You read that when you reviewed the reports? A: Correct. Q: Wasn't that important in your determination whether or not cocaine had any affect on his ability to commit the crimes that he did in April of 1994? Wasn't that important that since he hasn't been able to conform his conduct to the law in the State of Missouri? A: Very much so. Would you like to know why? - Q: And, Doctor, wasn't it also importantyou took your history from the defendant; isn't that correct? A: Not entirely. Q: Okay. But part of it was from the defendant himself, is that right? A: Right. And I checked out the facts with the mom, and then later cross-referenced them with school records, and then later cross-referenced them with the Department of Correction records. That's why I review records, to cross-reference. The record demonstrates that Dr. Cuneo not only had seen the report, but relied upon it for certain factual information. The trial court did not err in overruling Morrow's foundation objections. As to any unpreserved arguments of error, we find no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, so we do not review for plain error. See Rule 30.20. Point denied.