 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawkins11/4/2005
further argued that he was not attempting to introduce the statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted; instead, he wanted " o prove that they said inconsistent things. I don't know which of those statements is true. I don't know if her second statement is true or her first statement is true, I just know it's inconsistent and she was present when it was said . . . ." The trial court sustained the State's objection.
Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c). Generally, hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they fall under one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. Tenn. R. Evid. 802.
On appeal, the appellant argues that the contrasting April 22 and May 1, 2002, statements of Mark Gentry are "exculpatory" because in the first statement Mr. Gentry said that they did not stop anywhere and failed to include information about the stop at the convenience store between the victim's camper and the appellant's sister's house. Therefore, the statements should have been brought before the jury through the testimony of Mrs. Gentry. However, we note that this information was provided to the jury during Detective Christian's testimony. Specifically, on cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred:
The appellant: Detective Christian, you said you went to that dumpster at the BP Station or someone did?
Detective Christian: Someone did.
The appellant: And what day did they go there?
Detective Christian: May 1st.
The appellant: May the 1st. Did anybody go to that dumpster at the BP Station before May the 1st?
Detective Christian: No.
The appellant: On April the 22nd did anybody go to that BP Station?
Detective Christian: No, no one knew to go there till May 1st.
The appellant: On April 22nd, you took a statement from Mark Gentry, did you not?
Detective Christian: I did.
The appellant: And present and signing as a witness when that statement was made was Chastity Gentry, right?
Detective Christian: She was, she was there.
The appellant: Okay, you interviewed Mark Gentry again on April the 23rd, is that right?
Detective Christian: I did.
The appellant: And did anybody on April the 23rd go look at that dumpster?
Detective Christian: No, we didn't know anything about the dumpster till then.
The appellant: All right, and you interviewed Mark Gentry again on April the 24th?
Detective Christian: I did.
The appellant: And did anybody go check the dumpster on April the 24th?
Detective Christian: No.
The appellant: No one looked at the dumpster until May the 1st?
Detective Christian: Not until May 1st.
The appellant: And that was the first time you had any information about the dumpster?
Detective Christian: That's the first time I'd received any information about the dumpster.
The appellant: So no one at the sheriff's department had looked in that dumpster where the Gentry's say there were things thrown away until May the 1st?
Detective Christian: Until May the 1st that's when we obtained the information about it.
Thus, because the appellant was able to elicit the desired testimony from a later witness, the court's error, if any, was harmless.
C. Disclosure of Appellant's Mental Evaluation
The appellant contends t
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.
|
|