Patton v. State, 49A02-9908-CR-523.

• Decision Date: 15 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. 49A02-9908-CR-523.,49A02-9908-CR-523.
• Citation: 725 N.E.2d 462
• Parties: Talmadge PATTON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

725 N.E.2d 462

Talmadge PATTON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 49A02-9908-CR-523.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 15, 2000.

Kevin C.C. Wild, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.

Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Timothy W. Beam, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

HOFFMAN, Senior Judge

Defendant-Appellant Talmadge Patton (Patton) appeals his conviction of burglary, a Class C felony, Ind.Code § 35-43-2-1.

We affirm.

Patton presents one issue for our review which we restate as: whether the trial court erred by admitting certain statements into evidence.

In March 1998, Patton entered a closed convenience store and began to push boxes containing cartons of cigarettes through a hole in the wall that was hidden behind the building's siding. Police officers directed Patton to come outside and then apprehended him. Patton was convicted of burglary, and he now appeals that conviction.

Patton contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence children's statements to the police regarding Patton's whereabouts. Specifically, Patton asserts that the statements are inadmissible hearsay that amount to assertions of his guilt. Additionally, he claims that even if the statements did not constitute hearsay, the court erred by admitting them because their prejudicial impact outweighs their probative value.

The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will reverse only upon an abuse of that discretion. Johnson v. State, 671 N.E.2d 1203, 1205 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied, 683 N.E.2d 578 (1997). Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c) provides us with the definition of hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 802, unless it fits within a few well-delineated exceptions. However, out-of court statements that are offered for a purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter stated are not hearsay.

In the present case, the officer testified as follows:

Q [Prosecutor]: At that point did you find any sign of [a] break-in?

A [Police officer]: Nothing.

Q: Okay, so, what did you do?

A: We started to walk back to our squad cars and the children continued to tell me no, he's inside that building. He went in —

[Defense Attorney]: Objection

The Court: Overruled

A: He went in back here and they took me to the back corner of the building looking back from where I had just driven through. Continuing to say he's in there, pointing at the rear of the building.

(R. 215-16). It did not matter whether there was actually someone inside the convenience store. Rather the fact that these statements were made and the officer accepted them, whether they were true or not, was relevant to explain why the officer did not leave the premises after he could find neither signs of entry nor a possible suspect. The officer's testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but was offered to explain the sequence of events in his investigation of the alleged burglary of the convenience store. "Out-of-court statements introduced primarily to explain why a particular course of action was taken during a criminal investigation are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and are not hearsay statements." Clark v. State, 648 N.E.2d 1187, 1192 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. The officer merely used the children's statements to assist him in his investigation. Therefore, because the statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, they did not constitute hearsay and were not inadmissible on that...