Opinion ID: 853611
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pearline's Deposition

Text: In cross-examination of Pearline, Thompson attempted to use a deposition of Pearline to refresh her recollection. Thompson handed the deposition to Pearline and asked her to look through it. The State objected on the basis that the deposition could not be admitted unless Thompson was impeaching the witness. Thompson responded that he was using the deposition to refresh Pearline's memory. The trial court sustained the objection because Pearline didn't prepare the deposition and asked defense counsel to take the deposition away from the witness. Although Evidence Rule 612(a) clearly envisions the use of writings to refresh a witness's memory, it does not address the method by which the witness's memory may be refreshed. 13 Robert Lowell Miller, Jr., Indiana Practice § 612.101, at 225 (2d ed.1995). We agree with Judge Miller that a simple colloquy is all that is required under Rule 612: The witness must first state that he does not recall the information sought by the questioner. The witness should be directed to examine the writing, and be asked whether that examination has refreshed his memory. If the witness answers negatively, the examiner must find another route to extracting the testimony or cease the line of questioning. Id. at 226 (internal citation omitted). Evidence Rule 612 does not suggest, much less require, that the writing used to refresh a witness's memory must have been prepared by the witness. Before the adoption of the Indiana Rules of Evidence, this Court had long held that a writing used to refresh a witness's memory could be prepared by the witness or another person. See Gaunt v. State, 457 N.E.2d 211, 216 (Ind.1983) (quoting Clark v. State, 4 Ind. 156, 157 (1853)). In Gaunt, we found no abuse of discretion when the trial court allowed the State to use a witness's deposition that was prepared more than a year after the crime. 457 N.E.2d at 216. It was error to refuse to permit Thompson to use Pearline's deposition to refresh her recollection. Nevertheless, as this Court explained in Fleener v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1140, 1142 (Ind.1995), an error will be found harmless if its probable impact on the jury, in light of all of the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. See Ind. Trial Rule 61. Thompson did not include the deposition in the record and made no offer of proof. He points to nothing in the deposition that was not covered in the witness's testimony. Accordingly, there is no showing that the trial court's erroneous ruling affected Thompson's substantial rights. [3]