objections and relevant litigation at trial.

[viper515]

I recently litigated a battery case in municipal court in which I knew going it, it would be very biased and it was. The prosecutor objected to almost every question with "relevance" concerning the state of mind of the victim. Even facts that are being disputed that are in the official police report were being objected. I know this is a biased court though.

I have filed an appeal de novo in district court and set for jury trial.

I am curious how "state of mind" may be successfully examined at trial so a judge will allow it? In this matter, I was attacked and threatened by the victim. I called the police 3x, but my attempts to enter my own phone records were objected (relevance) and sustained. I feel that is certainly exculpatory evidence that should be allowed.

Would it be reasonable to consider that anything in an official police report should be open to examination at trial?

 

[ElleMD]

A victim's state of mind is not relevant as no matter what it was, the victim did not deserve to be a victim. There is no state of mind for which "crime victim" is an acceptable nor expected outcome. If you were attacked you can try claiming self-defense, but that does not necessarily excuse any injury to the victim. It is merely a defense that can be put forth. The judge either buys it or doesn't, and either considers it a mitigating factor or not.

 

[viper515]

Thank you. Would you be able to answer the questions on my phone records and if statements made by the victim to police, and in the police reports are typically allowed to be examined?

 

[ElleMD]

Any evidence is subject to judicial discretion. I don't see how you calling police has any bearing on someone being a victim, and it is likely that the judge feels the same. calling the police changes nothing regarding your actions and it is only hypothetical that a different response from the police would have resulted in a change in your behavior. In other words, you can not blame the response of the police for your behavior. Whether you called or not doesn't change the facts of what happened.

You can present your side of the police report but it is very difficult to refute what a third party recorded as accurate after the fact. For one, you are an obviously biased source.