discussing inconsistencies in Indiana cases regarding the presumption of prejudice in cases of extra-judicial communications
How later courts described this case
- discussing inconsistencies in Indiana cases regarding the presumption of prejudice in cases of extra-judicial communications
- “[Bjecause mandatory precedent clearly places the burden of proving prejudice on the defendant, we require Hall to prove he was prejudiced by the misconduct.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KEIRSCH, Judge,
concurring in result.
I fully concur in the decision of the majority as to all issues except for the exclusion of the defendant's medical expert. I believe the trial court was within its discretion to exclude the proffered testimony and that the defendant failed to preserve any error in its exclusion by failing to make an offer to prove. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority.
The trial court did an exemplary job of wrestling with the difficult issue of exclusion of scientific testimony which was raised in the midst of trial. The transeript reflects the court's extensive legal research and analysis which caused it to conclude that the proffered testimony did not meet the standards for scientific reliability set forth in Ind. Evid. Rule 702(b). I *403 believe the trial court was acting within its sound discretion in doing so. 14
. The majority finds the exclusion of the scientific evidence to be harmless error. Were I to agree that the exclusion was error, I would have serious reservations as to whether the exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. If the exclusion of the evidence was error, then the proffered evidence was based upon scientifically reliable principles. The excluded testimony would have, insofar as I can determine, put evidence of an alternative cause of death before the jury. Can excluding scientifically reliable evidence of an alternative cause of death in a murder trial be error that is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?