State v. Lovett
943 N.E.2d 409
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Lovett had a romantic relationship with Tonya Pickett in the late 1980s.
- Pickett and her stepfather were murdered on November 18, 1988; Lovett was an early suspect but not charged at that time.
- In 2008, a new investigation led to Lovett being indicted for the murders by grand jury.
- In 2009, the State sought a pre-trial ruling on admissibility of 168 letters, two letters to friends, and Pickett's datebook.
- The trial court ruled the letters inadmissible hearsay and the datebook irrelevant and hearsay, and certified the ruling for interlocutory appeal.
- The State appeals the ruling, arguing relevance and non-hearsay status; the appellate court affirms the trial court’s preliminary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the letters are admissible despite hearsay concerns | Lovett did not provide proper foundation; letters could be relevant with timing. | Letters are inherently hearsay and lack proper foundation; irrelevant without timing, | No reversible error; ruling upheld for abuse of discretion not shown |
| Whether the datebook is relevant and non-hearsay | Datebook could show timing of actions; context could make it relevant. | No foundations about frequency of entries; not probative. | Datebook not shown to be relevant; evidentiary ruling affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in excluding the evidence | There is potential relevance with adequate foundation; exclusion premature without trial. | Trial court properly weighed relevance, probative value, and prejudice under Evid. R. 403. | No abuse of discretion; order affirmed |
| Whether motion in limine rulings preclude later admissibility at trial | Rulings should not foreclose admissibility when trial context provides foundation. | Rulings are subject to trial-based reconsideration with appropriate foundation. | Rulings non-final; trial will determine admissibility with full context |
Key Cases Cited
- Camm v. State, 908 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. 2009) (hearsay and exceptions analyzed; foundational issues)
- Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224 (Ind.1997) (mass of evidence; importance of trial-context admissibility)
- Remsen v. State, 495 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.1986) (motion in limine; protective function prior to trial)
- Cox v. State, 696 N.E.2d 853 (Ind.1998) (relevance, prejudice, and 403 balancing in evidence rulings)
- Burks v. State, 838 N.E.2d 510 (Ind.Ct. App.2005) (admissibility context; foundation required for evidence)
- Myers v. State, 887 N.E.2d 170 (Ind.Ct. App.2008) (probative value required for relevant evidence; abuse of discretion standard)