Hilton v. State
| Decision Date | 31 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 02S00-9407-CR-670,02S00-9407-CR-670 |
| Citation | 648 N.E.2d 361 |
| Parties | Chris A. HILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Jeffrey G. Raff, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
After a jury trial, Chris A. Hilton (Hilton) was convicted of Murder, and was sentenced to sixty years in prison. The questions presented on appeal are whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of James Sims, and whether the trial court's findings were sufficient to support enhancement of Hilton's sentence. We hold that the trial court did not err on either ground, and affirm.
On August 29, 1993, Hilton, Alphonso Garcia (Garcia), Johnny Rouse (Rouse), and Makeisha Brown went to the Spring Harbor Apartments in Fort Wayne, Indiana, because Hilton had learned that his girlfriend was in apartment twelve of the complex and that she had been raped by an African-American male. Each of the thirty-one buildings in the complex had an apartment numbered twelve, one of which was occupied by Paul Rossetti, a Caucasian. Hilton knocked upon several doors before coming to Rossetti's apartment. Rossetti allowed Hilton, Garcia, and Rouse to enter when Hilton knocked and asked to use the phone. Upon questioning, Rossetti told Hilton that he had no information regarding Hilton's girlfriend. Hilton became upset and directed Rossetti upstairs to his bedroom and told Rossetti to lie on the bed. Hilton ordered Rossetti to place a pillow over his head, and then shot him twice at close range, killing him. Hilton was convicted of Murder after a jury trial. The trial judge sentenced him to sixty years in prison, consisting of the forty-year presumptive sentence and a twenty-year enhancement. This appeal followed.
Hilton first argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of James Sims. Hilton alleges that Sims would have testified that he heard Garcia tell a third person that Garcia shot Rossetti. The trial court deemed Sims' testimony inadmissible, based upon Hilton's failure to establish a proper foundation for impeachment of Garcia, and because the testimony was hearsay.
Hilton asserts that Sims' testimony was admissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), which allows impeachment of a witness's "prior inconsistent statement." Statements offered for this purpose are not hearsay. Evid.R. 801(d). To impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, Lewis v. State (1983), Ind., 451 N.E.2d 50, 54. Evidence Rule 801(d)(1) requires that the declarant (Garcia) testify at trial, and be "subject to cross-examination concerning the statement." Upon review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Hilton failed to establish a proper foundation for impeachment, since Hilton did not avail himself of the opportunity to cross-examine Garcia about the statements allegedly overheard by Sims. Garcia, therefore, made no statements about the alleged conversation that might be inconsistent with Sims' recollection.
Even if Hilton had laid a proper foundation for Sims' testimony, he waived this issue by failing to submit an adequate offer of proof. " 'An offer of proof must be certain and must definitely state the facts sought to be proved, and must show the materiality, competency, and relevancy of the evidence offered.' " Tope v. State (1977), Ind., 362 N.E.2d 137, 142, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 869, 98 S.Ct. 209, 54 L.Ed.2d 146 (quoting 28 I.L.E. Trial § 45 at 44 (1960)). Hilton's offer of proof is as follows:
If Mr. Sims is permitted to testify, I believe that he will testify that sometime a couple months after this incident he overheard a conversation involving Alfonso Garcia, wherein Mr. Garcia indicated that he had been the one who had committed the crime.
Hilton's offer of proof lacks specificity and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...error was prejudicial. 1 McCormick, supra, at 218. The Court of Appeals, applying language from this Court's decision in Hilton v. State, 648 N.E.2d 361 (Ind.1995), found the State's offer insufficient. Hilton first noted that an offer of proof should indicate the facts sought to be proved ......
-
Angulo v. State
...that a "proper foundation must be laid to warn the witness and enable him to deny or explain the prior statement." See Hilton v. State , 648 N.E.2d 361, 362 (Ind. 1995), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Wilson , 836 N.E.2d 407, 409-10 (Ind. 2005). That warning must adequately call t......
-
Roach v. State
...the offer to prove should identify the grounds for admission of the testimony and the relevance of the testimony. See Hilton v. State, 648 N.E.2d 361, 362 (Ind.1995); Yoon, 687 N.E.2d at 206; United States v. Peak, 856 F.2d 825, 832 (7th Cir.1988); 13B R. MILLER, INDIANA PRACTICE, COURTROOM......
-
Arhelger v. State
...prove should [also] identify the grounds for admission of the testimony and the relevance of the testimony." Id. [citing Hilton v. State, 648 N.E.2d 361, 362 (Ind.1995); Yoon v. Yoon, 687 N.E.2d 201, 206 (Ind.Ct.App.1997); United States v. Peak, 856 F.2d 825, 832 (7th Cir.1988); 13B R. MILL......