Court Opinion

ID: 9567152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:49:47.099642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:15.570555
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(concurring):
I concur in the majority opinion and offer the further comment on the matter of the trial court’s refusal to allow hearsay evidence bearing upon the defendant’s state of mind.
Appellant argues that such evidence was offered to demonstrate that he was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse or that the circumstances were such that he was provided a moral or legal justification for his conduct. These are the very elements of the offense of manslaughter as charged and inherent upon the plaintiff to prove. Consequently, it cannot be said that there is any substantive basis for claiming error.
Further, the record reveals that the court below was liberal in allowing defendant to testify concerning the relationship of his wife with the victim and his feelings about the entire matter and such was the most probative, relevant evidence of his state of mind.
In fact, the court allowed defendant to testify, over objection, about the conversation with his wife wherein she related that the victim had threatened defendant with bodily harm. In light of this ruling allowing hearsay, the prior ruling prohibiting it, if error at all, was harmless error.