Court Opinion

ID: 9851186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:35.668782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.759420
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
The statement of Mrs. Maxwell to the defendant concerning information Mrs. Maxwell had “ascertained” from the interviews with the children was not admissible for any purpose. Her conclusion as to the “running thread” through all the interviews was clearly objectionable as hearsay. All that the State was entitled to prove was the defendant’s statement to Mrs. Maxwell that if Mr. Hatridge came on the premises “she felt obligated she would have to shoot him, and that she had the gun.”
I think it is difficult to say that the admission of Mrs. Maxwell’s testimony to the effect that all four of the children were concerned that the defendant was going to shoot their father was harmless error. The defendant admitted that she shot Mr. Hatridge, but claimed she fired the gun in self-defense. Al*146though there was some evidence of statements by the defendant to other persons that she was going to shoot Mr. Hatridge if he came on the premises, Mrs. Maxwell’s testimony about the concern of the children was highly prejudicial.