Court Opinion

ID: 9739376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:13:28.181802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.911475
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Arterburn, C.J.
I concur with the majority in this case. In so doing I would make the following observations. The dissent in this case correctly states the law concerning the use of written memoranda to refresh the recollection of a witness.
However in the case at bar the following is found in the record:
“Q. Do you have an independent recollection of the questions asked and the answers given?
“A. Reasonably so, yes.
*660“Q. Can you testify without any aid or help as to what questions were asked and the answers given.?
“A. Yes, sir, reasonably so.
“Q. You would not need Exhibit 1 then, is that correct?
“A. No.
“Q. Can you remember specifically the questions asked and the answers given?
“A. No, not absolutely, specifically.
“Q. Then you do need aid to refresh your recollection, is that correct?
“A. Yes, sir, word for word, I do.”
At that point the prosecutor started to read from the grand jury transcript and the following objection and ruling appears :
“MR. WARD: We object. The record would be the best evidence, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Objection sustained, Mr. Prosecutor.”
Mr. Ward then objected to the witness reading the transcript. The court ruled:
“THE COURT: He said he needed it for specific help. Overruled.”
The record then contains a series of questions and answers set out in quotation marks following which the following objection and ruling appear:
“MR. WARD: No, Your Honor, I move to strike all the testimony. It appears it is the product of a third person. I have no opportunity to cross examine.
“THE COURT: Overruled. He said he knew the questions and answers and used that to refresh his memory.”
There is no mention in the record that the transcript was read in evidence. When that was attempted the objection was sustained. The trial judge did correctly permit the witness to examine the transcript. The record is silent as to where the transcript was during the actual testimony of the witness. In the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary we must *661presume the trial court restricted the use of the transcript to the refreshing of the witness’s memory. 3 Wiltrout, Ind. Practice § 2790 (1).