Court Opinion

ID: 9714401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:36:43.010067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:25.794605
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring.
Appellant claims that the trial court was in error in overruling his hearsay objection and permitting police officer Davis to testify to the content of a statement made by Fogshee, one of the victims. The statement, made in the emergency room of the hospital within an hour after the attack, described two attackers as Eric, the salad bar man, and Mike, a black male of the same age wearing a long brown leather coat. This same victim testified at trial and identified appellant Vance and the brown coat he was wearing. >
The state presents the argument in its brief that the testimony of the officer was admissible over the hearsay objection because it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule for out-of-court statements offered primarily to explain why a particular course of gction was taken by the police. Williams v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 161, 162. I do not agree with this position of the state. Such an out-of-court statement supplies the reason for a particular course of action. To be admissible, the reason itself, as distinct from the course of action, must be relevant, that is, it must aid in the resolution of an issue at trial. Here, the reason was not relevant at the trial on guilt or innocence. Thus, this proposed justification for admission of the pri- or statement fails.
DICKSON and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur.