Opinion ID: 1928017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the terrible thing

Text: The State called Rose Carson to testify as to a conversation she had with Bloodsworth in Cambridge. On direct examination she was asked whether she recalled what she and Bloodsworth had talked about during the weekend. The record is: He said that, he asked me that I give him a place to stay for the night. That he had done something bad. That he needed a place to stay until the next day, which would have been Monday, and he was going to the State hospital to see if he could get admitted. Q Okay. What if anything did he say with regard to his wife? A He just said he had done something bad and that he was afraid that him and his wife wouldn't get back together because of it. The Carson testimony no doubt prompted the questions propounded to Birdie Plutschak, Bloodsworth's mother-in-law, as a part of the defense case. She testified to a telephone conversation which she had with Bloodsworth. The record is: Q And what else was the conversation? What other conversation took place? A And then he was very upset. He told me that he had done a terrible thing. I said what was that? He said, because I got  MR. LAZZARO: I object to any self-serving statements of the Defendant Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Bloodsworth objects to the trial court's having sustained on the ground that it was self-serving any response by Mrs. Plutschak as to what the terrible thing was that he had done. As our discussion under Part I of this opinion indicates, this terrible thing was a part of the State's case where the conviction was obtained upon the basis of circumstantial evidence. If the evidence here was essentially contemporary in point of time, we believe the witness should have been permitted to answer.