Court Opinion

ID: 9861003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:39:02.272724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:02.531709
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting and concur-
ring.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that it was reversible error to permit Dr. Dian to testify concerning his conversation with Dr. Varju concerning the infection of appellant's girlfriend with trichomonas vagina-is. I agree with the majority that the testimony of Dr. Dian was hearsay and as such was inadmissible. However, I disagree that it should result in the reversal of this case.
The majority opinion cites Altmeyer v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 138 for the proposition that the erroneous introduction of hearsay material does not automatically constitute a reversible error. However, the majority goes on to distinguish Altmeyer from the case at bar and arrive at an opposite conclusion. In examining the entire record in this case, I think it is highly unlikely that Dr. Dian's testimony concerning his conversation with Dr. Varju played a major role in appellant's conviction.
In the case at bar, the jury was not required to rely upon the unsupported testimony of a young victim. The victim's testimony was bolstered by her sister and by appellant's daughter. Absent the testimony of Dr. Dian, the evidence in this case is overwhelming as to appellant's guilt. Under these circumstances, I do not think we can justify the expenditure of judicial time and the inconvenience to the prosecuting witnesses to order a new trial.
I concur with the majority that the testimony of appellant's daughter, although concerning incidences that occurred some nine to ten years previously, in fact was admissible.
I also have examined other alleged errors in appellant's brief and find none of them rising to the stature of reversible error. I therefore would affirm the trial court.