 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
r about his dog and his bond. The victim mentioned that the appellant would be incarcerated on February 11. On February 10, 2002, the victim told his sister that the appellant would be at the jail the following day. The victim said that he did not know if he wanted to be incarcerated with the appellant.
On February 13, 2002, the victim called his sister. He asked about his bond but did not mention the appellant. He called her later that same day and asked her to borrow money to post his bond. He mentioned that the appellant had given him a bail bondsman's card and had said that "Sugar Mama" could get him out of jail for fifty dollars. The victim told his sister that the appellant was in the jail down the hall from him. The victim called his sister a third time on February 13, again asking about his bond. He said he had sent a note to the appellant asking to borrow money for his bond. The appellant did not respond to the query. The victim told his sister that he needed to get his guitar from Booher's house. The victim said that the appellant had to serve fifty days in jail. The victim opined that he believed that the appellant had him thrown in jail with him so he would not be the only person in jail.
The victim next called his sister on February 14, 2002, and he told her that he had not been able to get the appellant to respond to his request for money. The victim again expressed his dissatisfaction of not having his bond posted, saying, "These mother fuckers are in here laughing at me. I'm on a two hundred and fifty dollars [bond], I ought to have been out of here, God damn. Cock suckin' Willie [the appellant] down there, man, I ain't, fuck with him no more, man, ever. I'm writin' him off." He later said, "I don't want to cause no problems for nobody, but God damn I'd just like to get out of here and take care of this shit. Like I said[,] it wasn't like I got drunk, public intoxicated drunk. You know (unintelligible). He done it his stupid self. Willie [the appellant] done this shit to me, just like he stuck me up to Bristol." In his last telephone call to his sister on February 15, 2002, the victim yet again asked about the money for his bond but did not mention the appellant.
The State objected to the introduction of the calls, saying that the telephone conversations were hearsay and irrelevant since they were made almost three months before the murder occurred. After reviewing the transcript of the taped telephone calls, the trial court ruled that the calls were inadmissible. The court found that most of the conversations revolved around the victim's dog, the guitar, and his bond. Specifically, the trial court stated:
very phone call was made to his sister. . . . Every phone call dealt with his wanting to get out of jail before he had his hearing. Most of the phone calls showed that he loved his dog. . . . He's got a second concern, his daughter's birthday or something is coming up and he really wants to get the guitar from this April Jackson [Booher] to take to, get it to go to his daughter, and it shows he wants to get his things in order . . . . And he actually says in there he didn't care about going to jail as a result of the hearing as long as he could just get out on bond for a few days to get a few things taken care of.
The court said that it would not waste the jury's time by having them listen to the conversations, finding, "I don't think it really goes to any animosity toward [the appellant.]" The court acknowledged that some of the calls reflected the victim's displeasure with the victim in February; however, there was nothing to indicate that the victim was still upset in April. Moreover, the victim never threatened the appellant; he merel
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|