697 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. 1998), 49S00-9701-CR-001, Jackson v. State

Docket Nº:49S00-9701-CR-001.
Citation:697 N.E.2d 53
Party Name:Earl JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
Case Date:July 21, 1998
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 53

697 N.E.2d 53 (Ind. 1998)

Earl JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant,


STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.

No. 49S00-9701-CR-001.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 21, 1998

Page 54

Lesa Lux Johnson, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.

Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Christopher L. LaFuse, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.


The defendant, Earl Jackson, was convicted for the January 13, 1995 murder 1 of Derik Hale and sentenced to fifty-five years imprisonment. In this direct appeal, he asserts the following as trial court errors: (1) exclusion of testimony of the defendant's statements; (2) admission of evidence pertaining to the defendant's shoes; and (3) improper sentence. We affirm.

The defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excluded testimony from Jose Shelby about the defendant's statements hours after the crime. Admissibility determinations by the trial court are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be reversed "only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind.1997). The State objected to the testimony on hearsay grounds, and defense counsel argued that the evidence should be admitted under either the present sense impression or state of mind exceptions. 2 When the trial court sustained the State's objection, defense counsel preserved the error by an offer to prove. Shelby stated in the offer to prove that, hours after the crime, when the defendant heard of the victim's death, the defendant stated that he did not mean to kill the victim.

Hearsay is admissible under the present sense impression rule when the statement describes or explains "a material event, condition or transaction, made while the declarant was perceiving the event, condition or transaction, or immediately thereafter." Ind.Evidence Rule 803(1). The defendant claims that his statement was relevant to his intent at the time of the crime. Because admission of the statement seeks to describe or explain the "material event" of the crime, the statement must have been made during the commission of the crime or immediately thereafter. The record reveals that the defendant's statement was not made until hours later, after the defendant heard about the victim's death, not immediately after the commission of the crime. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the evidence under the present sense impression exception.

Second, the defendant argues that the hearsay was admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. Such statements are admissible when they pertain to "the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain and bodily health), but not including a...

To continue reading