Court Opinion

ID: 9692617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:58:46.399873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.682914
License: Public Domain

LAVORATO, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent to division IX.
As the majority points out,
the admission of hearsay evidence over a proper objection is presumed to be prejudicial error unless the contrary is affirmatively established. The contrary is established when the record shows that the challenged evidence did not impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.
In my view of the record, the majority turns this rule on its head. Far from affirmatively establishing that Dr. DiMaio’s hearsay response did not impact on the jury’s finding of guilt, I think the record establishes the opposite.
A proper analysis of the prejudice issue necessarily requires an examination of the facts, an explanation of the theories of *755both sides coupled with a determination of which theory the facts best support, an evaluation of the importance of the experts and their testimony, and the setting in which the hearsay response was solicited.
As the majority notes, the facts are indeed bizarre. They involve the deaths of two young women: Cynthia Walker and Carol Willits.
On February 23, 1979, Walker’s body was found on a road in Muscatine. She had been shot three times.
Several miles away, Willits’ body was found in her vehicle with the engine running. She had a single gunshot wound to her right temple. The wound was inflicted by a gun found in her lap — the same gun that had been used to kill Walker. Willits had purchased the gun forty-eight hours earlier.
Murder-homicide was the investigating authorities’ initial theory — the same theory the defense used at trial. A “Dear Jane” letter from Barrett to Willits was found in her vehicle in addition to a valentine from Walker to Barrett.
Barrett told the authorities that he had known both women for several months, that he had been romantically involved with both women, and that he had had sexual relation with Willits. He gave the following account of the events leading up to the deaths of the two women. On February 16 he spent the night with Walker in his home. About 2 a.m. Willits came to the home and caught the couple in bed. An argument then ensued. Willits during this time made threats of suicide. Because of what happened on February 16, Barrett wrote the “Dear Jane” letter severing their relationship.
Walker’s mother testified that on February 22, 1979, Cynthia received a phone call from Willits, who made arrangements to pick up Cynthia so the two of them could travel to Iowa City to meet a mutual friend. Cigarette butts of the type of cigarettes Cynthia smoked were found in the ash tray of Willits’ vehicle. In addition, hairs were recovered from Willits’ vehicle similar to the hairs of both women. Sand found on the bumper of Willits’ vehicle was compared to and found similar to sand found at the scene where Walker’s body was discovered. Sand in Willits’ shoes was similar to sand found in Walker’s shoes. Walker died between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m. Willits’ died between 10:30 p.m. and 1 a.m.
The State advanced the following theory: Barrett murdered Walker to obtain the benefits of an insurance policy on her life; he then murdered Willits in such a way as to make it appear that Willits had killed Walker and then committed suicide. Necessarily, it was crucial for the State to disprove that Willits’ death was a suicide. Hence, a good share of the State’s evidence focused on this part of its case.
As to the insurance theory, the jury could have found the following facts. Barrett had been involved in a relationship with Walker prior to her death. In the latter part of 1978 he promised she could ride with him to California. As a condition of the trip, the two were to take out an insurance policy on Walker’s life. Although Barrett did not take Walker on the trip, the insurance was nevertheless purchased. The insurance policy was for $50,-000 and had a double indemnity clause providing for double recovery if Walker died a nonnatural death. Barrett was the sole beneficiary of the policy, which was in effect at the time of Walker’s death.
Critical to the State’s theory was a journal written by Barrett in 1977, which is the subject of division IV of the majority’s opinion. As the majority notes, in the journal Barrett related a plan to kill his then wife so that he could recover life insurance proceeds. Although the plan was never carried out, the State introduced the journal to establish a pattern of behavior. Simply put, the theory was that if he could plan it then, he could do it now.
Barrett attempted to discount the relevancy of the journal by showing that he purchased the policy after his wife had lost her job. Because she had lost her job she had also lost her life insurance, which was an employment benefit.
The State offered testimony from Willits’ friends to rebut Barrett’s claim that he had *756had a romantic relationship with her and that he had had sexual relations with her. The State produced some evidence tending to rebut Barrett’s story about the confrontation on February 16 and some evidence from which the jury could possibly have found that the gun had been purchased at Barrett’s request.
The State produced no direct evidence that Barrett was at the scene of either death. It did, however, produce two witnesses who had seen two cars on the road where Walker died at about 12 a.m. and 12:30 a.m. of the morning in question. One car was a Ford Grenada, the model Willits drove. The other car had rectangular headlights, similar to the Buick automobile belonging to Barrett’s parents.
Absent the testimony of the experts, the case was very close. Given the State’s burden of proof, however, I think a jury would be hard pressed to say that the evidence, at this juncture, better tended to support the State’s theory for conviction of murder. In light of this evaluation, it becomes clear that the testimony of the experts was extremely crucial.
The State produced one expert, Dr. DiMaio, to negate the defense’s theory of murder-suicide. Dr. DiMaio, the Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory for Bexor County, Texas, had had considerable experience with suicides. He had been employed as a forensic pathologist since 1969. The State had asked DiMaio to review photographs of the scene, the autopsy reports, and the police investigative reports, and to determine whether Willits’ death was a homicide or a suicide. His opinion was that her death was a homicide.
DiMaio listed six factors he found significant in reaching his conclusion. The first factor involved the blindfold found around Willits’ eyes. In his experience, he had seen no suicide in which a blindfold was used. He thought it would be possible but rare.
The second factor related to the location of the knot in the blindfold. The knot was on the left side of the head. According to DiMaio, a right-handed person, as Willits was, would tie the knot either in the center of the head or more to the right because it is easier using the right hand to tie the knot.
Photographs of Willits’ body showed she was wearing cotton work gloves that were obviously too big for her hands, the third significant factor. In DiMaio’s opinion, one could not tie a knot with these gloves on.
Photographs also showed that Willits’ gun hand was down with the gun on top of it. In DiMaio’s opinion, the recoil of the gun would have twisted the gun hand to the right. Typically, in his experience, the gun is found on the seat next to suicide victims or clutched in their hands.
The position of the gun barrel at a straight angle to the temple and the straight path of the bullet through the head were also significant to DiMaio. In his opinion it would be physically difficult if not impossible to shoot oneself in this manner. In his experience, people shoot themselves by canting or angling the gun.
The photographs also showed a paper bag under Willits’ arm. It was still intact, opened, and expanded. According to DiMaio, had the gun fallen it would have crushed the bag.
The defense counsel vigorously cross-examined DiMaio with the intention of discrediting his opinion and securing concessions. Counsel brought out the fact that DiMaio had reached his conclusion on the very day the authorities first contacted him.
In addition, counsel was able to secure some concessions that were rather helpful to the defense. For example, it was conceded that the number two cause of death among young people is suicide; that most suicide victims shoot themselves in the right temple; that in twenty to twenty-five percent of the cases, suicide notes are left near the scene; that the notes, as in this case, are generally brief, one page or less; that such notes are usually written within hours of the suicide; that there was no sign of a struggle at the scene in the present case; that the blindfold here does not rule out suicide; and that the forensic *757experts employed by the defense were known to DiMaio and were competent.
Turning his attention to some of the six factors listed as significant by DiMaio, counsel also secured some concessions here. For example, DiMaio admitted that it would be easy for someone who is blindfolded to lean forward, cock the head, and shoot. DiMaio admitted there was no physical evidence to refute this possibility. He also admitted that although he had not seen suicides in which a blindfold had been used, it can and has occasionally happened. He further conceded that Willits, sitting in her automobile, could have lowered her left elbow to avoid hitting the car window and tied the knot in that position. Had that happened the knot would have been on the left side of the head.
DiMaio, in response to defense counsel's questioning, admitted that in a deposition prior to trial, he had said that the fact Willits purchased the gun alone less than forty-eight hours before her death suggested suicide. He also admitted that the angle of the bullet was consistent with suicide. Finally, he admitted that a gun held against the head by a suicide victim would cause a wound identical to one held at the same spot by a perpetrator.
Defense counsel brought out the fact that Willits had told her roommate that if she were to do something terribly wrong, she would commit suicide and use a blindfold around her head. DiMaio conceded he could not remember whether he had this piece of information when he first rendered his opinion to the authorities.
Against this background, the prosecutor began his redirect with an attempt to rehabilitate DiMaio. After several questions and answers, the examiner attempted to bolster DiMaio’s opinion with the objectionable hearsay:
Q. I think you mentioned to me you have three or four fellows in your office, other pathologists. You like to have somebody to be able to argue your cases with, don’t you? A. Right, if you’re by yourself, after a while you develop this God complex. You don’t only talk to yourself, you begin to believe you know everything. It’s nice to have other people who say, no, you don’t know what you’re talking about and argue with you because it makes you think, and one of the dangers of a one-man office is, again, you get this God complex, and that’s why you like to have people to tell you you don’t know what you’re talking about and argue with you.
Q. You’ve got that in your organization?
A. Oh, definitely, yes.
Q. You don’t allow the God complex, to say it — A. No, believe me.
Q. Doctor, have you in fact almost always or — I guess always worked in a situation where you’ve worked with other forensic pathologists, you’ve debated and discussed your cases? A. I’ve always worked, yes, sir, in offices with multiple medical examiners.
Q. Have you, in fact, had other colleagues of yours whom you respect in the field of forensic pathology discuss this particular case with you? Have you gone over this with others? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What sort of comments do you get from them?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Excuse me. That calls for hearsay, your Honor.
Q. Are these the sorts of things you rely upon in your medical practice, Doctor? A. I listen to them, yes.
Q. And they are the sorts — these are the individuals — other individuals to whom you give credence and credibility when you make opinions and defend or argue your opinions? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have you received by way of comment from those types of persons?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That calls for hearsay, your Honor, with respect to this matter; objected to for that reason.
PROSECUTOR: It’s an exception for the reason that it’s the type of comment that the Doctor has indicated that in his field is relied upon.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: It doesn’t matter to me, the exception is that’s hearsay and objected for that reason.
[[Image here]]
*758THE COURT: Your response, Mr. Ra-mey, for the record.
PROSECUTOR: My response was simply that, yes, your Honor, it’s hearsay but it’s the type of hearsay that has an exception under the hearsay rules. It also has the exception contained within the opinion rule of the Iowa rules of evidence and the federal rules of evidence.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, as a matter — May I make further record?
THE COURT: Please.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: It’s also calling for this witness to express opinions of other persons that were not relied upon to make the judgment that he made on the 29th day of November of 1979. It’s objected to for that reason as well. It doesn’t have any probative value as it relates to this matter.
THE COURT: The objection’s overruled.
Q. Doctor, I’m not worried about your opinion in November of 1979. You have continued to discuss this case with colleagues since that time, have you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in discussing this case with your fellow colleagues in the areas of forensic medicine, forensic pathology, have you detailed to them the facts that you’ve discussed here in front of this jury? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, I believe you also have on occasion discussed with them the so-called suicide note, the note that was found on the dash? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that respect, have you found any of your colleagues who have given you persuasive reason to disregard your opinion that this is a homicide as opposed to a suicide in the death of Carol Willits?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Excuse me. That’s objected to for the reasons already articulated. That calls for hearsay on the part of this witness.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
A. No, sir.
The defendant’s three experts also testified to their considerable experiences with suicide. One was a forensic scientist, another a medical doctor, and the third a forensic pathologist. The thrust of their testimony was directed at discrediting the six factors relied on by DiMaio. They also discussed the various items of physical evidence, which, in their views, were consistent with their opinions that Willits’ death was the result of suicide.
Whether Willits’ death was the result of suicide or murder depended in large measure on the testimony of these experts. The prosecutor’s redirect examination of DiMaio was an obvious attempt to shore up his testimony. Skillful cross-examination had done its damage. Perhaps the prosecutor, anticipating damaging testimony from defense experts who were waiting in the wings, was attempting to even up the odds. Doing so by soliciting hearsay testimony concerning opinions of other experts had, I think, its intended effect. The evil in such a procedure, of course, lay in the defendant’s inability to challenge these opinions through cross-examination. In my view, such unchallenged opinions on a critical issue served to tip the scales in favor of the State in a case that was obviously close.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
SCHULTZ and CARTER, JJ., joins this dissent.