Head of Seminole County Communications. I've read depositions she gave in a civil wrongful death case. She knows her stuff, been there a long time. She knows all the event codes, dispatch codes and acronyms, etc for the event reports.
Custodian of records, and she seems to know the ins and outs very well.
The issue that O'Mara raised is the relevance of Zimmerman's past calls to NEN, in the current action. Mantei is arguing the evidence is admissible as a "then-existing state of mind" hearsay exception.
(a) A statement of the declarantas then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health, when such evidence is offered to:
1. Prove the declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation at that time or at any other time when such state is an issue in the action.
2. Prove or explain acts of subsequent conduct of the declarant.
It seems to me that Mantei is "assuming" a certain state of mind based on Zimmerman's tone of voice, or something along those lines, and that because Zimmerman made more than one call, Mantei is entitled to impute more frustration than is apparent in the 2/26 NEN call "these a$$holes always get away" remark.
Seems an intellectually dishonest leap to me. Just because somebody is a busybody (not saying Zimmerman is, other neighbors may have outranked him in call frequency) does not provide evidence they have a depraved mind, or even that that are (God forbid) frustrated.
Unless Mantei can better explain how he makes the connection between earlier unrelated calls and Zimmerman's state of mind on 2/26, I don't see how these calls are admissible. To me, the calls are just sterile reports, much as me reading the paper to you over the phone (although I might be frustrated with the news). What is the state of mind, other than informative, and "me and my neighbors want the burglaries to stop?"