Court Opinion

ID: 9732693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:31:43.301617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:31.626831
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
concurring in result.
In its discussion of Issue V, the majority opinion' views appellant’s proffer of Jan’s prior statements as an attempt to impeach her, and finds that the trial court properly prevented defendant from seeking to impeach Jan’s credibility with evidence of her prior statements expressing disbelief in the victim’s accusations.
Appellant’s argument seems to present a different issue, however. During defendant’s direct examination of Susan, she twice testified, without objection, that Jan admitted disbelief in the accusations. Thereafter, the court sustained the State’s improper impeachment objection to the following question:
Q. Was there ever any explanation offered as to why these accusations were being made?
At trial, defense counsel stated that he was not seeking to present impeachment testimony. He contends that Jan’s prior statements were admissible as substantive evidence under Patterson v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 55, 324 N.E.2d 482, and that because it was not offered for purposes of impeachment, the traditional impeachment foundation was not a prerequisite.
However, defendant failed to make an offer of proof. This precludes the trial court, and this Court on appeal, from determining the relevancy and admissibility of the proposed testimony, and the potential for harm resulting by its exclusion. Because of the absence of an offer of proof, the issue is not presented on appeal. Strickland v. State (1977), 265 Ind. 664, 359 N.E.2d 244.
In all other respects, I concur with the majority.