Court Opinion

ID: 9741146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:50:03.931457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.538044
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
DeBruler, J.
In my view, the trial court committed error in refusing to permit the appellant to testify as to what Mr. Kelly advised him about returning to the State Farm. The purpose of this evidence was to show the state of mind of the appellant and to support his defense that he did not intentionally flee the State Farm but did so unintentionally under the influence of drugs, and to further explain his reasons for not deciding at that point to immediately surrender himself to the police.
The statements were not offered as proof of the truth of the assertions they contained, and they therefore were not hearsay, and should not have been excluded as hearsay. Harvey v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 473, 269 N. E. 2d 759; Wells v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 608, 261 N. E. 2d 865; Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. Fields (1970), 255 Ind. 219, 259 N. E. 2d 651. I concur with the majority that exclusion of this evidence was harmless error and should not result in a reversal of this *254conviction in light of the subsequent testimony of the witness Wooley at the trial which described the consultation of the appellant with Mr. Kelly.
Note.—Reported in 286 N. E. 2d 398.