State v. Davis

• Decision Date: 01 December 1978
• Docket Number: No. 49675,49675
• Citation: 587 P.2d 3,2 Kan.App.2d 698
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Donald E. DAVIS, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

Page 3

587 P.2d 3

2 Kan.App.2d 698

STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Donald E. DAVIS, Appellant.

No. 49675.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Dec. 1, 1978.

Review Denied Feb. 28, 1979.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The business records exception to the hearsay rule renders admissible hearsay statements of hospital personnel but does not render admissible included hearsay statements absent admissibility of the included statements under some other exception to the rule.

2. The purpose of a voluntary intoxication instruction is to direct the jury that it may consider whether defendant's mind was so affected by alcohol or drugs that defendant was incapable of forming the requisite specific intent.

3. Where the existence of a mental state incapable of forming a specific intent has been negated by evidence, the lack of a voluntary intoxication instruction is not erroneous.

James S. Phillips, Jr., of Phillips & Phillips, Chartered, Wichita, for appellant.

Marvin R. Cook, Asst. Dist. Atty., Vern Miller, Dist. Atty., and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before FOTH, C. J., and ABBOTT and REES, JJ.

REES, Judge:

This is an appeal from a jury conviction of aggravated battery (K.S.A. 21-3414). The charge arose out of a stabbing during an argument over payment to the band following a dance at a private party. Defendant was a member of the band. He did not testify.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to admit proffered evidence consisting solely of selected portions of a hospital record reciting nothing other than reported statements made by defendant to hospital personnel. The entire hospital record was marked as an exhibit but not proffered. The State objected to admission of the proffered evidence on the ground it was hearsay. We hold the trial court did not err.

The common law hearsay rule and its exceptions, as judicially and legislatively modified in Kansas, are codified. K.S.A. 60-459, Et seq. Defendant's sole contention to the trial court was that the proffered evidence was admissible under K.S.A. 60-460(M ), the business records exception to the hearsay rule. No other basis for its admissibility having been presented to the trial court, admissibility under any other exception to the rule cannot be argued on appeal. State v. Darling, 208 Kan. 469, 475, 493 P.2d 216 (1972). The issue of admissibility of the proffered evidence under K.S.A. 60-460(L ), the statutorily expressed exception to the hearsay rule for statements of physical or mental condition of the declarant, is not before us and we express no opinion as to its applicability to the proffered evidence.

Assuming appropriate foundation for admission of all or part of the hospital record in this case, the problem is that double hearsay is involved. The proffered evidence constitutes hearsay statements of hospital personnel reporting statements of the defendant. It was offered to prove the truth of such included statements. The business records exception, K.S.A. 60-460(M ), renders admissible hearsay statements of hospital personnel but does not render admissible included hearsay statements absent admissibility of the included statements under some other exception to the rule. K.S.A. 60-463.

"The mere fact that recordation of third party statements is routine, as in official reports or hospital records, is no guaranty of the truth of the statements themselves. In this situation there are two hearsay barriers. The exception for business entries removes one of the barriers, and the removal of the other must depend on whether there is an independent basis for admissibility of the included hearsay declarations under some other exception to the hearsay rule." 2 Jones on Evidence § 8.8 (6th ed. 1972), pp. 178-179.

In State v. White, 72 Wash.2d 524, 433 P.2d 682 (1967), a case involving the admissibility of a hospital record, it is said:

"Although the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act allows regularly kept business records in evidence when proof that their custody, control and making shows prima facie that they are maintained in the regular course of business, the statute ipso facto does not render admissible such parts of the records as are otherwise excludable under well-established rules of evidence. If regularly maintained under a prearranged and established scheme, business records may be admitted to show the occurrence of events, conditions, conduct and status of things existing or occurring contemporaneously with the making of the records, but they are not admissible as a narrative of occurrences antedating the making of the notations. In short, although the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act establishes a statutory exception to the common-law rule against hearsay evidence, it does not in all respects render admissible evidence contained in the records which should ordinarily be excluded." State v. White, 72 Wash.2d at 530, 433 P.2d at 686.

Defendant's reliance upon In re Estate of Bernatzki, 204 Kan. 131, 134-135, 460 P.2d 527 (1969), is misplaced. Bernatzki, held medical records admissible under K.S.A. 60-460(M ). The statements there at issue were of the entrants, hospital personnel, not a third party declarant. In this case, defendant is a third party declarant. Defendant's reliance upon State v. Brierly, 109 Ariz. 310, 509 P.2d 203 (1973) (blood type, see p. 318, 509 P.2d 203); Henson v. State, 332 A.2d 773 (Del.1975) (physician's clinical findings, see pp. 774, 775); State v. Finkley, 6 Wash.App. 278, 492 P.2d 222 (1972) (physician's finding, see p. 280, 492 P.2d 222); and People v. Terrell, 138 Cal.App.2d 35, 291 P.2d 155 (1955) (physician's diagnostic conclusion, see pp. 56-57, 291 P.2d 155), are distinguishable. In none was there the issue of admissibility of double hearsay.

In Ferrier v. State, 5 Md.App. 553, 248 A.2d 501 (1968), the defendant was convicted of assault and battery. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence as a prosecution exhibit the hospital record concerning treatment of the victim's injuries. Part of defendant's argument was that the victim's statement of medical history was not "pathologically germane" to treatment and therefore not admissible. The Maryland Appellate Court held that as to the particular statement involved it saw no error in its admission and in the context of other trial evidence if there was error in admission of the hospital record it was not reversible error. 5 Md.App. at 557, 248 A.2d 501. As to the case before us, Ferrier is not in point because we do not have before us the question of applicability of K.S.A. 60-460(L ).

People v. Lewis, 294 Mich. 684, 293 N.W. 907 (1940), held hospital records inadmissible in a criminal action. People v. Herrera, 12 Mich.App. 67, 162 N.W.2d 330 (1968), reversed on other grounds, 383 Mich. 49, 173 N.W.2d 202 (1970), limited Lewis. In Herrera, defendant's conviction of manslaughter of her husband was affirmed upon a finding of nonprejudicial error. The defense of temporary insanity was a trial issue. The defendant had been admitted to a hospital on a date four months prior to the killing of her husband. She offered as an exhibit the hospital record that concerned her hospital admission, her apparent physical condition and her consumption of an unknown amount of phenobarbital. It was found that under the Michigan business entries statute the trial court erred in its refusal to admit the exhibit but not as to the diagnosis made at the time of her admission. 12 Mich.App. at 76-77, 162 N.W.2d 330. Whether the hospital record included statements of defendant or any other third party declarant is not disclosed by the opinion. Accordingly, Herrera is of no assistance in our decision.

We hold the trial court refusal of defendant's proffered evidence was not because of misapplication of the business records exception.

Aggravated battery, in contrast to battery (K.S.A. 21-3412), includes an element of particular or specific intent, that is, the "intent to injure." State v. Warbritton, 211 Kan. 506, 508, 506 P.2d 1152 (1973). Under K.S.A. 21-3208(2), the fact of voluntary intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such intent. Defendant claims error in the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the substance of K.S.A. 21-3208(2).

It is correctly argued on appeal that the trial court is duty bound to instruct on any defense supported by evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, would justify a jury finding in accordance with the defendant's theory. State v. Seely, 212 Kan. 195, 197, 510 P.2d 115 (1973). The question before us is whether there was sufficient evidence to require that the jury be given a voluntary intoxication instruction in this case.

The purpose of a voluntary intoxication instruction is to direct the jury that it may consider whether defendant's mind was so affected by alcohol or drugs that defendant was incapable of forming the requisite specific intent. See State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373, 379, 532 P.2d 1064 (1975). Where the giving of a voluntary intoxication instruction has been approved, there has been affirmative evidence that the defendant had no recollection of the occurrence or events out of which the charge arose. State v. Seely, 212 Kan. at 196-197, 510 P.2d 115. Our limited research has disclosed no Kansas case reversing for failure to give a voluntary intoxication instruction. Where the existence of a mental state incapable of forming a specific intent has been negated by evidence, the lack of the instruction has been held not erroneous. State v. Kleber, 2 Kan.App.2d 115, 117, 575 P.2d 900, Rev. denied, 224 Kan. --- (May 5, 1978); State v. Wright, 221 Kan. 132, 139, 557 P.2d 1267 (1976); State v. Gross, 221 Kan. 98, 100, 558 P.2d 665 (1976).

What evidence was there of voluntary intoxication of defendant? There was none other than the testimony of his wife and the proffered evidence which we have found was not...