Court Opinion

ID: 9726958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:14:35.109138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.256641
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I do not agree with the implicit conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the destruction of the tape and any error of the trial court in permitting Mrs. Smith-hart to testify are rendered harmless by reason of the fact that defense counsel did not choose to introduce two statements which the police officers remembered had been made by Mrs. Smithhart during the taped conversation which would have been helpful to the defendant’s case. This argument ignores the balance of the destroyed tape. Even if those statements had been used to impeach Mrs. Smithhart, we would *47still be faced, as we are here, with the suppression of the balance of the destroyed tape. The prejudice to the defense from the unavailability of the destroyed portion of the tape as well as its materiality is self-evident. Mrs. Smithhart was the sole witness of the State who connected appellant with the commission of the crime. This video-tape was taken of a conversation of Mrs. Smithhart and her ex-husband two days after he had been arrested as a co-defendant in the robbery-killing. This indictment had been procured upon her testimony. She had perjured herself before the Grand Jury on a prior occasion, falsely denying any knowledge of the case. She came to see him for one or both of two reasons. She either wanted to get information, to give information, or both. If she was there out of affection for her ex-husband, that would be useful to the defense. If she was acting as an agent of the police and attempting to get him to make incriminating statements, that would be useful. If she sought to justify her having given the necessary testimony to the Grand Jury, that would be useful. It is self-evident to me that that conversation would have covered many matters which would have been useful to a man such as appellant, deemed innocent of the crime by law, and having to defend himself against criminal charges.
On the basis of our holding in Hale v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 630, 230 N.E.2d 432, and Taylor v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 264, 295 N.E.2d 600, I would reverse and grant a new trial with instructions to order all testimony of the witness, Mrs. Smithhart, suppressed.
Note. — Reported at 323 N.E.2d 645.