Court Opinion

ID: 9573962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:00:57.228843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:49.771806
License: Public Domain

Justice WEBB
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority but I do not agree with its rationale that certain testimony was not hearsay. The defendant assigned error to the testimony of certain witnesses as to what the victim had told them — to wit, that she had seen a small handgun in the defendant’s pocket, that the defendant had *491threatened her and she was afraid, and that the defendant refused to leave her alone after she had tried to end their relationship. The defendant contends this was inadmissible hearsay testimony.
I cannot agree with the majority that this is not hearsay testimony. The majority says the testimony was not introduced to prove the truth of the statements but to prove the victim made them. While it is true that this testimony was introduced to show the victim made the statements, it is obvious to me that the reason the State wanted to prove the victim made the statements was so that the jury would believe the defendant carried a pistol, that the victim was afraid of the defendant, and the defendant refused to leave the victim alone. This makes the testimony hearsay.
I also do not believe the testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. The victim’s state of mind was not relevant to any issue in the case.
I do not believe this error was prejudicial because there was substantial other evidence introduced to prove the matters proved by this hearsay testimony. For that reason, I vote with the majority.