Court Opinion

ID: 9649137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:43:13.69658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:08.093548
License: Public Domain

Josephine Linker Hart, Judge, dissenting. The evidence used to convict the appellant was inadmissible hearsay. Even though the victim, the appellant’s wife, Cindy Camp, did not testify at trial, the trial court permitted Officer Barry Holt to repeat in court her out-of-court statements to him. His written report of that statement was also introduced into evidence. The trial court expressly found that both were admissible as an excited utterance pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 803(2) and as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 804(b)(5). Relying again on Rule 804(b)(5), the trial court also permitted the State to introduce into evidence Cindy Camp’s affidavit that she executed on the day after the battery in connection with her complaint for divorce from the appellant. Neither Holt’s testimony regarding Cindy Camp’s statement nor his written report was properly admitted. First, neither was admissible pursuant to Rule 803(2), the “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule. An excited utterance is “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The theory behind the excited utterance exception is that “circumstances may produce a condition of excitement which temporarily stills the capacity of reflection and produces utterances flee of conscious fabrication.” Luedemann v. Wade, 323 Ark. 161, 164, 913 S.W.2d 773, 775 (1996). It must be established that “the utterance was made soon enough after the accident for it to reasonably be considered a product of the stress of accident, rather than of intervening reflection or deliberation.” Id. “An excited utterance must have been made before there was time to contrive and misrepresent; that is, it must have been made before reflective and deliberative senses took over.” Id. at 165, 913 S.W.2d at 775. Barry Holt testified extensively regarding his taking of Cindy Camp’s statement. He first obtained from her basic information, such as her name and date of birth. He then asked her what happened. After taking the report, he read it back to her and asked if it accurately reflected her comments. Cindy Camp agreed that it did, and she signed the report. Holt testified that three hours passed between the time Cindy Camp told him the incident occurred and the time he made contact with her. Cindy Camp had time to contact a friend who met her at the hospital. Mrs. Camp, after meeting a friend, was interrogated by Holt. She then was given an opportunity to review the report to make sure that it accurately reflected her remarks. Three hours passed between the incident and the time she gave the statement. In view of these facts, we must conclude that Cindy Camp’s remarks to Holt were born of deliberation and reflection rather than an excited condition. See Luedemann, supra (officer’s testimony regarding a statement given to him at an accident scene regarding how an accident occurred was not an excited utterance despite the officer having arrived “minutes” after the accident occurred); Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 430, 934 S.W.2d 179 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1242 (1997) (officer’s testimony regarding a witness’s choosing the defendant out of a photographic lineup was a deliberate and reflective act rather than an excited utterance). Moreover, neither Holt’s testimony nor his written report was admissible pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5). That rule provides that a statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness if it has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” of other exclusions provided by Rule 804(b). The evidence lacked such equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. See Doles v. State, 275 Ark. 448, 631 S.W.2d 281 (1982)(witness’s statement given to the police shortly after the crime occurred was not admissible pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5)). It should be noted that investigative reports by the police are specifically excluded as an exception to the hearsay rule. Ark. R. Evid. 803(8)(i). This further indicates that the report lacked such guarantees. The majority states that the appellant failed to challenge in his initial brief the admissibility of the evidence pursuant to Rule 803(2). The majority concludes that because the appellant did not do so, there is a separate ground for affirming the introduction of the evidence that went unchallenged on appeal, thus obviating any need for discussing the admissibility of the evidence pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5). The general rule is that if an appellant presents a meritorious allegation of error, the appellant wins. Here, the appellant has raised an allegation of error that the majority assumes, without deciding, is meritorious; therefore, the appellant ought to win. The majority says the appellant should have appealed an alternative ruling by the court and cites Ark. R. App. P.—Crim. 14 and Pearrow v. Feagin, 300 Ark. 274, 278-79, 778 S.W.2d 941, 943 (1989). Neither support this proposition. On its face, Rule 14 does not. At most, Pearrow holds that, in a civil case, if an appellant wants to obtain reversal of the trial court’s denial of a counterclaim, the appellant must argue that there was not a valid procedural basis for denying the counterclaim and must argue the counterclaim would have been meritorious if it had been allowed. Pearrow does not hold that a defendant in a criminal case must present, on appeal, arguments that would show that the evidence was not admissible under any theory articulated by the trial court or under any conceivable theory. The majority stands on its head the familiar case law principle that we will affirm a trial court’s ruling for any reason if the ruling was correct. Here, the majority opinion erroneously equates an appellant’s abandonment of an issue by failing to argue it on appeal, with a concession by the appellant that the trial court’s ruling is correct. We submit, given the procedural posture of this case, that all we can tell is that the appellant abandoned his Rule 803(2)-based allegation of error. The appellant’s abandonment of this issue does not, somehow, permit the majority to assume that the trial court’s Rule 803(2) decision was correct. If the trial court’s Rule 803(2) ruling was correct, the majority opinion should explain why. In fact, for reasons we have previously explained, the trial court’s ruling was wrong. In any event, appellant’s argument was raised in his initial brief. The argument heading in appellant’s brief reads, “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING A POLICE OFFICER’S HEARSAY TESTIMONY UNDER ARKANSAS RULE OF EVIDENCE 803(2) AND 804(b)(5).” The appellant then noted facts related to the appellant’s claim that the excited utterance exception did not apply. Specifically, the appellant noted that Holt testified that Cindy Camp seemed upset when he contacted her and that three hours passed between the time the incident occurred and when Holt met her. In Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 862, 545 S.W.2d 606, 609 (1977), an appellant raised points for reversal, “without any citation of authority and actually without any real argument. . .” The Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted the position of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma and concluded that “[assignments of error presented by counsel in their brief, unsupported by convincing argument or authority, will not be considered on appeal, unless it is apparent without further research that they are well taken.” Given that the appellant cited authority to this court regarding the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, that he presented an argument touching on facts related to the excited utterance exception, that he argued the point both below and in his reply brief, and, most importantly, that it is apparent without further research that his argument is well taken, it is untenable for the majority to dodge the issues presented here by asserting a perceived procedural violation on the part of the appellant. For these same reasons, the cases cited by the majority for the proposition that the appellant failed to challenge the admissibility of the evidence pursuant to Rule 803(2) are distinguishable. Also, Cindy Camp’s affidavit was not properly admitted pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5). See Poe v. State, 291 Ark. 79, 83, 722 S.W.2d 576, 578 (1987)(“[O]rdinary affidavits taken under oath do not carry the same trustworthiness as the exceptions to hearsay listed in Rule 804.”) The majority concludes that the affidavit introduced into evidence was merely cumulative to Holt’s testimony and the report. Consequently, its admission, the majority holds, was harmless. However, since both the testimony and the report were not properly admitted, the affidavit was not cumulative. Moreover, the majority resorts to speculation to conclude that the affidavit was cumulative to Holt’s testimony and his written report. The affidavit provided that the appellant threatened to kill Cindy Camp and that the violence had continued for ten years. Holt did not testify to this. Limiting our review to the abstract, whether this information was or was not put before the jury through Holt’s written report is a matter of speculation by the majority because the trial court excised portions of the report, and that fact is borne out by the abstract. The appellant’s abstract of Holt’s written report fails to show what information was excised from it before it was given to the jury. Thus, the majority cannot conclude that the affidavit was cumulative to the report without resorting to speculation or examination of the record to determine what version of the report the jury read. Were we to inspect the record, we would see that the affidavit was not cumulative to Holt’s written report because the trial court excised its passages regarding Cindy Camp’s statements that the appellant threatened to kill her and that the violence had continued for ten years before it was admitted into evidence. The affidavit provided other information not to be found in either Holt’s testimony or his written report. The affidavit provided that the appellant had choked her during an incident of physical abuse that occurred six months earlier. The affidavit further provided that she was afraid of the appellant and that there was an “immediate and present danger of domestic abuse. ...” The prejudicial impact of this information is obvious. Further, the majority concludes that the abstract does not reflect that the appellant argued at trial that the admission of the affidavit violated the Confrontation Clause and that consequently, the issue was not preserved for appellate review. Thus, the majority also concludes that it will not analyze the admission of the affidavit under the constitutional standard of harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the abstract, the trial court stated that the affidavit was admissible pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5). The appellant asked, “Can I inquire of Your Honor what facts or basis that the Court is relying on to make a finding that the statement is trustworthy?” The trial court replied, “No, you can’t. I ruled 804(b)(5).” Certainly, the “particularized guaranties of trustworthiness” of evidence is the touchstone of a Confrontation Clause argument. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 (1990). The appellant’s own remarks did not limit his objection to Rule 804(b)(5), and the trial court summarily terminated any further discussion. In view of the appellant’s abstracted request that the trial court analyze the trustworthiness of the evidence, his Confrontation Clause argument was properly preserved. As argued by the appellant at trial and on appeal, the introduction of the affidavit was contrary to the protection afforded the appellant by the Confrontation Clause. See generally Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff, 6 Ark. App. 286, 292, 641 S.W.2d 33, 37 (1982)(“The [Confrontation [Cjlause prevents the state from trying the defendant by using ex parte affidavits or depositions in lieu of examination and cross-examination of the witnesses in front of the trier of fact.”) Further, the admission of the affidavit must be analyzed under the constitutional standard of harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Granted, our case law mandates that an issue must be raised both at trial and on appeal before it may be addressed, that the abstract must reflect that it was so raised, and that an appellate court cannot go to the record to reverse. In order to affirm, the majority narrowly read the appellant’s abstract and argument on appeal. Further, it concludes that evidence was cumulative without being able to determine from the abstract whether it was cumulative. Our case law does not mandate this outcome. I respectfully dissent. Neal, J., joins in this dissent.