Court Opinion

ID: 9520060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:30:39.95998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:30.056692
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.
— In Patterson v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 55, 324 N.E.2d 482, this Court held that out-of-court statements are not inadmissible as hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for cross-examination. Pursuant to this holding the McCall statement is correctly deemed hearsay because McCall, the declarant upon whose credibility the statement rested, was not available for cross-examination by the prosecution because McCall successfully asserted his privilege against self-incrimination when questions were put to him on the stand. This point is worthy of note even though the parties to this appeal agree that the statement was hearsay. *672There is a strand running through Indiana cases as well as the Florida case of Pitts v. State, quoted from by Justice Pivamik, which would indicate that there is an interest underlying the rule that confessions by third persons should be excluded when proffered by the defense which is unrelated to the right of cross-examination and therefore to present day hearsay considerations. However, it is not necessary to identify the precise interests served by the rule requiring the exclusion of confessions by third persons as it is quite evident on this record that the McCall statement was hearsay.
Prentice, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 382 N.E.2d 916.