Court Opinion

ID: 9635044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:33:30.929548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:15.930243
License: Public Domain

Donald L. Corbin, Justice, dissenting. I must dissent from the majority opinion reversing Appellant’s conviction on the basis that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony. While I agree that the testimony elicited during the examination of Detective Harper was hearsay, I believe that the Appellant opened the door to this testimony through his repeated references to the statements made by Maggie McDaniel and her daughter, S.M., to Alabama authorities. The majority, however, sidesteps this issue by illustrating only one of the references to those statements. A review of the record reveals, that Appellant went beyond mere questions about how the information regarding the rape of L.H. was made known to Kathy Hanlin. In fact, after Appellant had already been warned that he was opening the door to this testimony, he specifically asked Detective Harper questions about the alleged sexual incidents between Appellant and S.M., as illustrated by the following colloquy: Q. Isn’t it true that the information from Alabama is that [S.M.] told Maggie McDaniel that Paul Hanlin had confessed to her in —• made this statement to her in — on Christmas Eve of 1998? A. I don’t see that in this statement. It says the first time anything happened was on Christmas Eve of 1998. Q. Christmas Eve, 1998. And then she told her mother about something that happened on New Years Eve, 1998, correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. And then she indicates and then she indicates she told her mother that evening or the next day, correct? A. Yeah, I think so. This line of questioning was centered on S.M.’s statements that she was raped by Appellant first on Christmas Eve of 1998, and again, on New Year’s Eve of 1998. It was only after this line of questioning occurred that the trial court allowed the State to ask about the specific events of those two dayá. The State argues on appeal that it had the right to elicit this hearsay testimony, in order to put S.M.’s and Maggie’s statements into context. In fact, a similar issue was addressed in a concurring opinion in Gordon v. State, 326 Ark. 90, 931 S.W.2d 91 (1996), which involved a discussion regarding the rule that once a party has opened the door to inadmissable evidence, the opposing party can do likewise. Relying in part on the treatise, Jones on Evidence, the concurrence stated: Evidence that is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, if offered by a party in the first instance, may become properly admissible to rebut or explain evidence offered by another party. 2 Clifford S. Fishman, Jones on Evidence Civil and Criminal, § 11:34, at 352 (7th Ed. 1994). This is known as the rule of verbal completeness. Id. at § 11:35; p. 355. The treatise goes on to state that while one state (Ohio) would not permit this, [t]he better view ... is that the “rule of completeness” permits introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence for the limited purposes of explaining or putting other, already admitted evidence, into context, or avoiding misleading the jury. Id. at 96, 931 S.W.2d at 98 (citing Jones on Evidence at § 11:39, p. 370) (Brown, J., concurring). This rule of verbal completeness supports the State’s contention that it had the right to pursue questions about S.M.’s statements, because Appellant had been picking and choosing parts of the statements to use to question Detective Harper. The State had the right to clarify for the jury what S.M. told her mother had occurred on Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve. The colloquy between Appellant’s counsel and Detective Harper could have left a mistaken impression about what occurred, particularly on New Year’s Eve. This court has recognized that where defense counsel opens the door to hearsay testimony, fairness dictates that the prosecutor be allowed to explore the area of inquiry to clarify any confusion or misapprehension that may have lingered in the jury’s minds. Cooper v. State, 317 Ark. 485, 879 S.W.2d 405 (1994). Finally, even if I agreed with the majority that the trial court committed error in allowing this hearsay testimony to be admitted at trial, I believe such error would be harmless and does not warrant reversal of Appellant’s conviction. It is axiomatic that the testimony of the rape victim satisfies the substantial-evidence requirement in a rape case. Clem v. State, 351 Ark. 112, 90 S.W.3d 428 (2002); Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991). Here, L.H. gave specific and detailed testimony regarding the rape. In addition, the State introduced medical evidence that was consistent with sexual abuse. Thus, the hearsay evidence was merely cumulative. Appellant has in no way demonstrated how he was prejudiced by its admission, other than the fact that he was convicted of the rape. Where there was sufficient evidence, without the hearsay testimony, supporting Appellant’s conviction, any error from the admission of that hearsay testimony was harmless. A similar result was reached in Gage v. State, 295 Ark. 337, 748 S.W.2d 351 (1988), where this court held that even an error of constitutional proportions will not require reversal if it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See also Thomas v. State, 289 Ark. 72, 709 S.W.2d 83 (1986). In the Gage case, this court determined that the appellant had not demonstrated that prejudice resulted from the error in the admission of testimony because of the overwhelming nature of the other evidence against him. Id. (citing Snell v. State, 290 Ark. 503, 721 S.W.2d 628 (1986), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 202 (1987); Berna v. State, 282 Ark. 563, 670 S.W.2d 434 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1085 (1985)). Based on the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. Dickey, C.J., and Hannah, J., join in this dissent.