Opinion ID: 2257538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Testimony of John Rucinski

Text: Linda also claims that the trial judge erred by admitting the testimony of John Rucinski [43] whom the State called to testify about a conversation that he had with Mellisa about Linda's plan to kill John and a later conversation that John Rucinski had with Linda on the same subject. [44] The defense claimed that statements attributed by John Rucinski to Mellisa during the conversation were hearsay that was inadmissible against Linda. The State countered by arguing that a hearsay exception, Delaware Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), applied. Accepting that argument, the trial judge ruled in favor of the State. Linda has appealed the trial judge's application of D.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E). A trial judge's evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. [45] Under D.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E), a statement is not hearsay if made by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy; provided that the conspiracy has first been established by the preponderance of the evidence to the satisfaction of the court. The State argued, and the trial judge agreed, that a conspiracy existed between Mellisa and Linda. Mellisa's statements to John Rucinski were in furtherance of the conspiracy. Indeed, Mellisa's statements were intended to solicit John Rucinski's involvement in the conspiracy. Linda claims that by finding that the State established, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of a conspiracy between the Linda and Mellisa, the trial judge abused his discretion. The trial judge's ruling was based on the testimony of Officer Keith Collins and a lengthy voir dire examination of John Rucinski. [46] Collins testified that he went to John's Bridgeville residence on August 15, 2000 to help resolve a property dispute between Linda and John. Collins told the parties if there was any kind of dispute as to who owned what, it had to stay in the house. Collins further testified that he witnessed Linda and Mellisa leave John's house in a van that was filled with possessions from the house. On voir dire, John Rucinski testified that within a month after the property dispute, Mellisa approached him: Q. Prior to her(Linda Charbonneau) moving in, or after she moved in, in August or September 2000, did you ever have any discussions with your wife and/or Linda regarding John Charbonneau? A. Yes. My wife I had  I came home from work and usual thing. We  it was about bed time. I was in bed. Had brought John Junior in, put him down to sleep. Got in bed. She had asked me if I would listen to something she had to say. She wanted  I am taking a guess she wanted my opinion on it, or I'm not sure exactly what her meaning of what the conversation was, but she told me that her and her mother had been talking about forcing John into a heart attack by taking away his pills, and you know, from like he said forcing him into a heart attack, putting him in a plastic tote, burying him in the backyard, so that she could get all of his stuff out of the house, and so she could have the house on top of that because she was afraid that if something ever happened to John she would get nothing. Q. You say she, who are you referring to? A. Linda Q. Missy(Mellisa) was telling you this? A. Missy was telling me this. My exact words well that it is a little more than I wanted to know about that situation and that you know I told Missy as long as she was with me, we would have no part in that, and then I mentioned something to Linda that night about it, and we talked more about it the next morning. John Rucinski testified that the next day he had a similar discussion with Linda about killing John. Q. What happened after that? There wasn't really much said about it in the morning. Came home that evening, came from work, the kids were all put to bed, sat out in the living room and talked about  I told her(Linda) what Missy had told me. She(Linda) told me that that was just like one of the scenarios. Court: You have to be real clear when you say she. A. Linda. Court: You have to be clear. I want to be certain the record is clear. A. Okay. Me and Linda talked. Linda said that was just one of the scenarios. Another one was  Q. That was just one scenario? A. That, hiding his pills and forcing him into having a heart attack was just one of the scenarios. The other one was faking a break-in, but she said she still might lose what was in the house, and I plain out told her that I don't know if she was trying to solicit me into this or she wanted my opinion or what. But I did tell her that I would have no part of that, and I did tell her that  I said that you know if you did do anything like this, the first person they are going to look at is you and me because of my record. We hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the above testimony of John Rucinski and Collins. The State presented purely circumstantial evidence about the conspiracy between Linda and Mellisa. We draw no distinction, however, between circumstantial and direct evidence. [47] The circumstantial evidence could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that Linda and Mellisa, in August of 2000, had the common purpose and design to kill John. Linda and John had a property dispute, shortly after which, Mellisa approached John Rucinski and told him of her discussions with Linda about killing John and burying him in the backyard. The day after his discussion with Mellisa, John Rucinski asked Linda about what Mellisa had said to him. Linda acknowledged that she and Mellisa had discussed, as just one of the scenarios, killing John by taking away his pills. From the fact that Linda and Mellisa had discussions with each other, and with John Rucinski, about killing John, a fact finder could infer that it was more likely than not that Linda and Mellisa had conspired to kill John. Thus, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting Mellisa's statements to John Rucinski under D.R.E 801(d)(2)(E).