Court Opinion

ID: 9646187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:51:55.226098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:35.251945
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER FOR NO. 19988
PER CURIAM.
By Motion for Rehearing Or In The Alternative Transfer, the State argues that the holdings in State v. Ivory, 916 S.W.2d 337 (Mo.App.1995) and State v. Basile, 942 S.W.2d 342 (Mo.banc 1997) stand in conflict with our decision in this case. Neither Ivory nor Basile supports the State’s argument that proving motive is one of the “limited situations” which would allow hearsay testimony into evidence under the state of mind exception.
Ivory discussed testimony of the victim’s colleagues which were statements against the interest of an unavailable witness and testimony by victim’s sister which the State claimed fell under the state of mind exception. The court found that the testimony of the victim’s colleagues admissible as declarations against interest tended to show defendant’s possible motive. 916 S.W.2d at 339.
However, the Ivory court did not address the question of using hearsay testimony under the state of mind exception to prove motive. The victim’s sister testified that, one day before his death, the victim stated he was afraid of the defendant. As to that testimony, Judge Blaekmar cautioned: “It should not be assumed that evidence of the victim’s state of mind is necessarily admissible.” Id. Continuing, however, he noted that the evidence regarding victim’s state of mind did not come in alone. Id. Rather, it was part of the overall evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer deliberation.
To explain, after the victim in Ivory expressed his fear of the defendant, his sister interceded with the defendant and obtained his assurance that he would not harm the victim. Id. After noting that the defen*95dant’s statements of assurance were not subject to the hearsay rule, the Ivory court said:
“The jury might conclude that the defendant lulled the -victim into a sense of security so that he entered the defendant’s car willingly and without hesitation, and that the defendant intended all along to do away with him, which purpose he accomplished as soon as he had the opportunity.”
Id. It was under these circumstances that the Ivory court found the “whole showing” demonstrated deliberation. The Eastern District in Ivory did not find that hearsay testimony admitted under the state of mind exception could be used to show a defendant’s motive.
The decision in Basile can be distinguished from this case on many levels. First, the questioned testimony in Basile was received without objection. 942 S.W.2d at 357. Next, this testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; thus, it was not hearsay. Id. Finally, the Basile testimony was not offered to establish the defendant’s motive. Id. Thus, the Basile court did not find that hearsay testimony under the state of mind exception can be used to demonstrate a defendant’s motive.
While Missouri cases allow the State wide latitude in proving motive, the State cannot prove motive by inadmissible hearsay that has been properly challenged. The State’s motion for rehearing or transfer to the supreme court is denied.
We also deny Appellant Kelley’s motion for rehearing or transfer to the supreme court without further comment.