Franklin v. Duckworth
| Citation | 530 F. Supp. 1315 |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. S 81-68.,S 81-68. |
| Parties | James FRANKLIN, Petitioner, v. Jack DUCKWORTH, Warden, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
David Capp, Merrillville, Ind., for petitioner.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Ronald D. Buckley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.
This cause is before the Court on a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by James Franklin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana.
Petitioner and Stephen Moten were indicted by the Lake County Grand Jury for murder and felony murder which had occurred on December 20, 1976 in Gary, Indiana. In separate trials, Moten was found guilty by a jury. He appealed and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Moten v. State, 269 Ind. 309, 380 N.E.2d 544 (1978). Petitioner was subsequently tried during the pendency of Moten's appeal and found guilty by a jury. He received a life sentence. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Franklin v. State, Ind., 386 N.E.2d 668 (1979). Petitioner has exhausted his remedies and the entire state court record has been filed here and reviewed.
Petitioner asserts the following grounds for relief:
The facts underlying this petition relate to the death of one Earl Taylor on December 20, 1976. On that date decedent was found lying on a sidewalk near his home dead of a shotgun wound to the head. The forestock of a shotgun and a blackjack were found lying near the body. Testimony showed that a blackjack, similar to the one found at the scene, had been seen in petitioner's house before the crime. On the morning following the crime Franklin was observed by police at the scene walking back and forth. When questioned by police, Franklin stated he had been in the vicinity the night before, had heard a shot and had seen two subjects fleeing the scene.
At trial the State called three witnesses who were acquaintances of Franklin and Moten who had previously given individual written statements to the police. These statements related to conversations which had taken place following the crime at a meeting the three had with Franklin and Moten. Each of the three, when asked essentially the same questions they had answered in their written statements, gave answers that conflicted with those written statements.
Dwayne Thomas was questioned on direct examination by the state about an incident which took place the day after the crime at the home of one Kathyleen Calamese. (R. 217-19). The state then determined that Thomas' in-court testimony was in conflict with a written statement that Thomas had previously given to the Gary Police Department and sought to introduce the same. (R. 220).
A hearing was conducted outside the presence of the jury on the admissibility of Thomas' statement. The trial court ruled that portions of the statement were hearsay but admissible as a tacit admission. (R. 230). The court ruled that the entire statement of Thomas was admissible pursuant to Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55, 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975).
Thomas' statement was then read to the jury. (R. 239-45). The relevant portions are as follows:
A similar series of procedural events transpired during the testimony of Billy Don Borders, Jr. After a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the Court ruled that portions of the statement of Borders fell within an exception to the hearsay rule and that the whole statement was admissible under Patterson. (R. 271-281). This whole statement was then admitted as State's Exhibit No. 13 (R. 293) and read to the jury by the trial judge. (R. 294-300).
The most relevant portion of this statement follows:
Again, the direct examination of Walthall Jones followed similar lines. Jones' statement, absent the boxed portions, was admitted as State's Exhibit No. 14. (R. 324) This statement, minus the deletion, was also read to the jury by the trial judge. (R. 325-329).
Two portions of this statement highlight the error urged on this petition:
Kathyleen Calamese, at whose house the above conversations allegedly occurred, was the State's next witness. She too had given a statement to the police, but it was not admitted into evidence. Portions were used by the state for impeachment (R. 325) and by the defense. (R. 354-55). This witness recalled a conversation in which James Franklin denied the accusations made to him. (R. 350-51).
It is established that the statements related by these witnesses were made by Moten. Franklin was present at the time.
The Supreme Court of Indiana addressed the admission of these statements. Indiana recognizes an exception to the traditional hearsay rule developed in Patterson v. State, 263 Ind. 55, 324 N.E.2d 482 (1975). The Patterson rule is that a prior statement of a witness is admissible, not only for purposes of impeachment, but also as substantive evidence, provided the out of court declarant is present at trial for cross-examination. Id., 324 N.E.2d at 484-485. The rationale behind the rule being that the dangers inherent in admitting hearsay testimony are obviated if the declarant can be cross-examined. Smith v. State, Ind., 400 N.E.2d 1137 (1980). The court stated that the Patterson rule does not extend to the situation where a co-defendant has made a statement inculpating the other co-defendant. Such a statement would be beyond the Patterson exception because the declarant would not be available for cross-examination at the time the evidence was introduced. Id., 400 N.E.2d at 1141.
In this case the Supreme Court of Indiana, adopting a like rationale, found that the previously quoted statements were not admissible hearsay under the Patterson rule because the declarant Moten was not available for cross-examination. The Court did find that the statements were admissible to show Franklin has been confronted with the accusation and had failed to deny it. The conclusion being that Franklin's failure to deny or otherwise respond to Moten's accusatory statement was evidence from which the jury could infer that he adopted or tacitly admitted the statement. Franklin, 386 N.E.2d at 670. The Supreme Court of Indiana reasoned that the witnesses whose statements were admitted into evidence were present and subject to cross-examination, therefore, their admission did not deny Franklin the right to confront his accusers. Id.
The principal issue raised here is whether the admission into evidence of the three hearsay statements which recounted an accomplice's inculpatory accusation denied the petitioner his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Underlying this issue is the relationship between the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule with its many exceptions.
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzales v. Surgidev Corp.
...province to weigh Grendahl's equivocation and evaluate whether he did in fact make the statement at issue. Cf. Franklin v. Duckworth, 530 F.Supp. 1315, 1319-20 (N.D.Ind.1982) (equivocal response treated as tacit admission for hearsay purposes), aff'd, 714 F.2d 148 (7th Cir.1983). Accordingl......
-
Caccavallo v. Duckworth
...521 F.2d 1370 (7th Cir.1975); McCord v. Henderson, 384 F.2d 135 (6th Cir.1967). (footnotes omitted). This court in Franklin v. Duckworth, 530 F.Supp. 1315, 1322 (N.D.Ind.1982), aff'd, 714 F.2d 148 (7th Cir.1983), stated "An error in a state trial does not rise to the level of a Fourteenth A......
-
Casada v. State
...States Constitution. Pointer v. Texas (1965), 380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1067-68, 13 L.Ed.2d 923, 926; Franklin v. Duckworth (N.D.Ind.1982), 530 F.Supp. 1315, 1319. In addition, Ind. Const. of 1851, art. I Sec. 13 states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the......
-
Ruel v. State
...also as substantive evidence if the out-of-court declarant is available for cross examination at trial. See also Franklin v. Duckworth (N.D.Ind.1982), 530 F.Supp. 1315, 1318, aff'd. 714 F.2d 148. Both inconsistent and consistent extrajudicial statements are admissible under the Patterson ru......