Court Opinion

ID: 9743634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:39:05.819167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:50.594927
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The prosecuting witness died of a gunshot to the chest a week before the retrial of this rape case. The retrial resulted in the conviction on appeal. This retrial and the death of the prosecuting witness occurred two years after the first trial at which her testimony was first taken, subjected to cross-examination and recorded. A written note signed with her name was found near her body which would indicate that she was going to take her own life because she was despondent over her life. Nothing in the note refers to her prior victimization by appellant or to the oncoming retrial.
Before trial, in the course of open and detailed discussions regarding the manner in which the trial should proceed in light of the recent death of the prosecuting witness, the question of the proper manner of handling the death certificate arose. The trial prosecutor stated that the death certificate might not be admissible as evidence for the trier of fact, but only for the judge in determining the admissibility of her prior recorded testimony. The defense lawyer stated that he intended to introduce the suicide note and testimony of a deputy coroner to support the inference that the prior recorded testimony of the prosecuting witness was not worthy of belief because it reflected that she may have suffered from guilt feelings for having given false or exaggerated testimony or from an unsettled mental condition.
Two possible legal avenues existed for the introduction of the suicide note and coroner’s information by the defense. The first avenue was that this evidence was admissible as directly and independently relevant to show bias or lack of trustworthiness of the witness. The second avenue was that it was admissible to dispel the prejudicial and adverse inferences stemming from written statements on the death certificate. Defense counsel was acutely aware of the potential which the introduction of the death certificate before the jury had for creating prejudicial inferences adverse to his interests. Defense counsel was unable to convince the judge that his evidence was independently relevant and that the first avenue be followed. I would agree. The passage of time between the taking of the prior testimony and the death, and the absence of any implication that she was despondent over matters related to her victimization by appellant or having to face a retrial, render the time connection of the death and the retrial severely attenuated. *1096Without much doubt, in light of the strength of the prosecution’s case, any error in refusing to permit its introduction on this basis would be harmless.
Having been unsuccessful in convincing the trial judge that the evidence was directly relevant, the record would show that defense counsel sought consciously to use the second avenue. In execution of this strategy, he consciously and deliberately chose not to object to the proffer of the death certificate by the prosecution. He did not object to its introduction; he did not seek redaction of offensive parts in it; and he did not seek to have the jury instructed as to the limited purpose of its introduction. The exhibit would have been excluded from consideration by the jury in the form in which it was offered if it had been properly objected to. I believe the record is clear in its relevation that defense counsel chose, as a matter of trial strategy, to take a calculated risk, in the hopes of convincing the judge that his evidence of suicide would be admitted to refute the prejudicial inference which might flow from it that appellant had something to do with the violent death of the witness. He was unsuccessful in this strategy. That is not to say that there was anything inappropriately done by counsel.
There are basically two legal reasons for concluding that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in excluding the evidence of suicide for this purpose. The first is that under the circumstances present here it is speculative in the extreme to conclude that the jury entertained the unwarranted inference that appellant had anything to do with the witness’s death, and that if it did entertain the inference, it would permit such inference to effect the decision reached. The certificate itself bears the information that the death occurred a week before trial as a result of a gunshot wound to the chest and that a homicide investigation was pending. That is an insubstantial basis upon which to deduce appellant’s involvement. Secondly, as fate would have it, one of the defense witnesses was shot and killed two months before the retrial and the deposition of this witness was read into evidence before the jury as well—an event of the same character. And thirdly, the trial judge ordered in the course of the trial that no comments be made by counsel on the death of the witness beyond the fact that she was dead. In this manner, exploitation of the potential of the written certificate of death to create inferences prejudicial to the defendant was prevented.
There is a second legal ground for upholding the trial judge’s ruling. Ordinarily, when one party presents part of a statement or transaction, his opponent should be permitted to present the balance thereof for the purpose of dispelling any adverse inferences. Durst v. State, (1920) 190 Ind. 133, 128 N.E. 920; Carroll v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 696, 338 N.E.2d 264. This rule is often referred to as the completeness, wholeness or open the door doctrine. The extent to which the opponent should be permitted to go into the transaction calls for a discretionary ruling by the governing trial judge. Such a ruling requires considerations of fairness. The trial court’s ruling excluding defense counsel’s evidence was within reason. The state of the witness’s mind at the time of her death was extraneous to the issues on trial, and fairness considerations were minimal in light of defense counsel’s deliberate choice to permit the objectionable evidence to go in. There was no reversible error in the trial rulings upon the evidence and the conviction should be affirmed.