Court Opinion

ID: 9740740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:41:09.566705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:20.081158
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring in result.
I agree with the result in this case because appellant was in fact found not guilty of the charge, driving while intoxicated, which relied upon the information in the probable cause affidavit. I write separately in order to express my concerns about the admissibility of these types of documents.
The admission of past recollection recorded is governed by Ind.Evidence Rule 808. That rule reads in relevant part:
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness.
[[Image here]]
(5) Recorded recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence but may not itself be received as an exhibit....
Evid.R. 808. This rule enables a court to obtain important and reliable evidence that would otherwise be lost due to the vagaries and failures of human memory.
*649However, while a court participates in this pursuit of truth it must remain ever mindful of the attendant risks. The notes that a police officer jots down or the routine reports that the officer files provide built-in incentives for veracity, e.g. the officer and other members of the department may well rely on such writings for continuing investigations. Unfortunately, a contrary incentive is present when an officer prepares a probable cause affidavit. Conscious dishonesty will be unusual, but certainly an officer would have every reason to be quite selective when choosing what details to include, even exaggerating on occasion. The purpose of the document, after all, is to persuade a judicial officer at a hearing that an arrest was justified. This goes to the issue of whether the document has been "shown .... to reflect that knowledge correctly." Evid.R. 803(5).
While I agree that in this case the error was harmless, I do not agree that the probable cause affidavit was admissible. We must remain ever mindful that these rules of evidence are to support twin goals, "that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined." Ind.Evidence Rule 102 (emphasis added)".