Court Opinion

ID: 9707368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:09:51.87934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:31.847818
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result only. The majority opinion *292might be taken to approve the proof of convictions of crime by oral and hearsay testimony. I do not believe it should be so construed. Records of conviction may be proved only by the records themselves with proper foundation or certified copies as provided by statute. However, here there was no prejudicial error because the convictions were involved only collaterally (see McCormick on Evidence, § 200, p. 412), and because the appellant was later permitted to- show, also by oral evidence, that the convictions' were not final and were then pending on appeal.
The majority opinion speaks of the appellant’s “defense” of harassment as related to the incidents of December 14, 1970, and January 1 and January 10, 1971. There was nothing in the incidents of those dates which would have justified the appellant in arming himself to the teeth and following Block. Likewise there was nothing in those incidents which would justify Block in harassing the appellant. Block’s justification for stopping appellant on March 20 arose out of hearsay reports that appellant was out to get him. Apparently the reports had some foundation.
It seems apparent that both parties introduced evidence of the incidents of December 14; January 1, and January 10 for the purpose of supporting the truth of their respective versions of the alleged assaults of March 20, 1971, and for the purpose of attacking the emotional stability of the other. For the most part evidence of what was said and done on the prior occasions were simply self-serving declarations on behalf of each. While the incidents were relevant on the issue of truth telling, I seriously doubt they were competent and admissible for that purpose. For this reason the trial court was •correct in keeping out the evidence of the subsequent incident. It too was designed only to support the appellant’s version of the truth of the incident of March 20. Had proper objection been made the trial court would probably have kept out most- of the extraneous *293incidents save that pertaining to other threats which were claimed to have been made by the appellant.