 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
y stated that he was "writing him off." The court concluded by stating that the calls were not relevant, or, if relevant, listening to all of the calls would be a waste of the jury's time.
Later in the trial, the court revisited its ruling on the inadmissibility of the telephone calls, saying:
And I want to say a bit more on the tapes that I sustained an objection to. I thought about it over the weekend, reviewed the transcript again this morning, and I still find that the Court feels that I could not allow the introduction of the derogatory remark made towards [the appellant] without allow the jury to hear all of the tapes. And then if they heard all of the tapes, any probative value that, any remarks that [the victim] made against [the appellant] would be substantially outweighed by the prejudice to the State. First of all, I don't find that any of the remarks are probative of his threatening [the appellant] in any way or having any long term feelings of ill will towards [the appellant] are anymore to anybody else who didn't help him get out of jail on bond, but if there is any probative value[,] it's slight and it's outweighed by the prejudicial ffect that it would have on, in this case against the State, so there.
The appellant argues that the trial court severely hampered his case in excluding the playing of the audiotapes, maintaining that the trial court "effectively gutted the defense's case" by excluding the calls. The appellant contends that without the calls themselves to demonstrate that the victim was unhappy with the appellant, the appellant had to rely upon the testimony of third persons and his own testimony to convey the victim's displeasure.
The appellant cites several cases in support of his claim that the trial court erred in its ruling as to the telephone conversations. In Neil P. Cohen et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence, § 4.04 (4th ed. 2000 & Supp. 2004), the law in Tennessee regarding the admissibility of prior threats of a victim against an appellant is explained:
the victim threatened the defendant, who then raises self-defense in trial if the defendant was aware of the threat, the threat is admissible on the issue of whether the defendant had the apprehension of imminent bodily injury. If the defendant were not aware of the threat or the victim's violent character, the threat may still be admissible under another line of Tennessee cases.
For example, in State v. Saylor, 117 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Tenn. 2003), the proof adduced at trial revealed that during the afternoon of a day of drinking with others, Saylor struck the victim with a hatchet or hammer, killing him. Our supreme court concluded that the trial court had erred in not allowing testimony by one of the drinking companions that at 1:55 p.m. on the afternoon he was killed, the victim had said he was "going to kill" Saylor, regardless of the fact that Saylor had not been told of this threat. Id. at 247. The court explained that the testimony should have been admitted because
" he character of the deceased for violence, as well as animosity toward the defendant, as indicated by words and actions at the time of the killing and before, are proper matters for consideration of the jury upon the question of self-defense. In some cases where self-defense is an issue, uncommunicated threats made by a deceased against a defendant are admissible as going to the state of mind of the deceased. However, the applicability of this rule is limited and it becomes operative only where relevant to explain the conduct of the deceased in establishing who was the aggressor."
Id. at 248 (quoting State v. Butler, 626 S.W.2d 6, 11 (Tenn. 1981)).
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.
|
|