McClure Argued Voluntary Manslaughter
In support of the defensive theory
that he was guilty of only this lesser included offense,
appellant offered the testimony of [three men].
Each man had sex with the deceased
Each of these witnesses testified
outside of the presence of the jury that he had had sexual
intercourse with the deceased while she was married to
Witness told him about the two other men
Appellant also offered to testify
and was allowed to do so only outside the presence of the jury
that one witness had told him that the deceased had had sexual
relations with [two of these men].
Erred (Prove adulterous intercourse)
We think the court erred in
rejecting the evidence offered by defendant to prove the
adulterous intercourse between his wife and the man [the three
men], and that recently before the homicide he had been informed
of this fact.
Reasonable cause to be frenzied evidence
This and any other evidence which
tended to show that he had
reasonable cause to be excited, troubled, distracted and
frenzied, that he had knowledge of facts well calculated to
destroy his mental equilibrium, to dethrone his reason,
to render it improbable that he
could and did act with a cool, sedate and
deliberate mind in committing the homicide, was in our opinion
McClure Required to Show Knowledge
To be admissible, needed to show
McClure tried to prove he had knowledge
To prove that he had knowledge of
the deceased having had sexual relations with Crowder and Davis,
appellant offered to testify that Cindy Haynes had so informed
Erred in refusing
The court erred in refusing to allow
appellant to testify as to what Haynes had told him on the
ground that such testimony would have been hearsay.
Not subject to attack as hearsay
When it is proved that D made a
statement to X, with the purpose of showing the probable state
of mind thereby induced in X, such as being put on notice or
having knowledge, or motive, or to show the information which X
had as bearing on the reasonableness or good faith of the
subsequent conduct of X, or anxiety, the evidence is not subject
to attack as hearsay.
Persons state of mind is caused by utterance
Whenever an utterance is offered to
evidence the State of mind which ensued In another person in
consequence of the utterance, it is obvious that no assertive
or testimonial use is to be made of it, and the utterance is
therefore admissible, so far as the hearsay rule is concerned.
Should have allowed testimony
The court should have allowed
appellant to testify as to what Cindy Haynes had told him, since
that testimony would have
shown he had knowledge of the deceased's indiscretions with
Crowder and Davis.
McClure testified he saw deceased on a date with one of the
If may be inferred that he also had
knowledge of her indiscretions with that man.
Since McClure would have shown his
knowledge of the deceaseds actions with the three men, the
court should have allowed those three witnesses to testify.
The testimony of the three witnesses
was relevant to McClures defensive testimony that he was guilty
of ONLY voluntary manslaughter and not murder.