Leake v. Hagert (1970) Facts P Leake brought suit against D Hagert, alleging negligence. P was operating a tractor at night when D negligently and carelessly drove her car into the tractor. P sought damages for his plow and tractor, as well as for permanent injuries and medical bills. D counterclaimed that P was the negligent party in failing to properly maintain and operate his tractor and plow and sought damages for her injuries and medical expenses. Both parties claims and defenses were dismissed. Issue Does an erroneous admission of a statement constitute a reversible error, if the admission was not prejudicial? Ruling/Analysis “The hearsay rule prohibits use of a person’s assertion, as equivalent to testimony of the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand, where he may be probed and crossexamined as to the grounds of his assertion and his qualifications to make it.” The court held that P’s son’s statement was erroneously admitted by the trial court, but the error was not prejudicial. Leake’s son was not a party to the action, he did not make the statement under oath, he was not subject to cross-examination, and he was not an available witness during the time of trial. Rule 61, N.D.R. Civ. P. holds that an error in the admission of evidence is not a ground for a new trial unless such error affects the substantial rights of the parties. Despite the fact that the son’s statement was erroneously admitted, the error was not prejudicial. Other witnesses, including an insurance adjuster, testified their observations during trial as to the condition of the taillights as well, thus P’s son’s statement did not affect any substantial rights as such information was presented by other parties as well. Lyons Partnership v. Morris Costumes, Inc. (2001) Facts P Lyons owned all intellectual property rights to the character “Barney”. P brought suit against D Morris, alleging that a costume D rented infringed P’s trademarks in Barney. District court ruled in favor of D on all claims. Issue Are statements relating to individual’s reactions and beliefs considered to be hearsay? Ruling/Analysis The district court’s judgment as to the Duffy-related trademark claim was vacated. The district court incorrectly dismissed P’s evidence as hearsay – P offered children’s statements and newspaper not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather that the children and the reporters expressed their belief that those dressed in D’s costume were Barney. This was direct evidence of the children’s and reporters reactions. United States v. Parry (1981) Facts D was convicted of conspiring to distribute PCP and possessing with intent to distribute. D contested that during the drug transactions, he possessed a good faith belief that he was assisting two undercover narcotics agents. In support of his claim, D related to a conversation he had with his mother, prior to his arrest, where he had shared that he was working with a narcotics agent. The district court held that D’s mother’s testimony would violate the hearsay rule. Issue Did the mother’s out-of-court testimony constitute hearsay? Ruling/Analysis Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded for new trial. The mother’s excluded testimony was the only available evidence which could corroborate D’s story. The lower court should admit the mother’s testimony and instruct that the statement be admitted only as circumstantial evidence of D’s knowledge of the narcotic agent. Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor (1956) Facts Appellant Subramaniam was sentenced to death after possessing twenty rounds of ammunition. Appellant appealed, arguing that he had been acting under duress after being captured by terrorists. Appellant sought to introduce evidence of the terrorist’s conversations and demands. Issue Are out-of-court statements made between terrorists considered hearsay? Ruling/Analysis The Lordships ruled that the appeal should be permitted. The court held that “it is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to be established by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but that the fact that it was made. The trial judge erred in ruling out the evidence between the appellant and trial judge. The appellant sought to prove that the terrorist’s statements caused duress, which did not constitute hearsay. United States v. Feliz (2015) Facts Defendant Feliz was convicted of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime & possession with intent to distribute cocaine. D moved to suppress two written confessions as involuntary and being induced by threats. Two officers testified that confessions were voluntarily made, while D argued otherwise. The judge recommended the confessions be suppressed as involuntary ; the district court held D’s testimony as hearsay and admitted the confessions into evidence. Issue Can a defendant’s out-of-court statement be admitted as evidence if it is to show the effects of the words on the listener? Ruling/Analysis Hearsay is a statement “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing,” and “a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) The case was vacated and remanded – the lower court erroneously excluded from consideration critical supporting evidence, as the testimony would have proven whether D had been threatened by police. An out-of-court statement may be offered to “show the effect of the words spoken on the listener.” (United States v. Bailey) – here, D’s testimony could demonstrate how Feliz was affected by the threats he heard, which does not constitute hearsay. United States v. Johnson (1995) Facts D Johnson was convinced on 9 counts of distribution of controlled substances, and four counts of mail fraud. D argued that District Court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence – a former employee had testified about a telephone conversation she overheard relating to the issue of writing medical prescriptions. Issue Can testimony relating to an overheard telephone conversation be admitted as evidence? Ruling/Analysis D’s conviction was affirmed. The court held that evidence of the telephone conversation was relevant, as it can demonstrate the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offense. The employee’s testimony was evidence of D’s knowledge that he was prescribing medications outside the course of professional practice. This did not constitute hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (basically can’t prove an actual claim or fact, BUT can try to prove an element of the crime) Campbell v. Boston Scientific Corp. (2018) Facts BSC manufactured a medical device ,to be implanted into the body, which contained a polypropylene mesh. The mesh manufacturer included a caution stating it should not be used for permanent implantation. Four women received the implants and developed severe complications. The women sued and received multi-million-dollar awards. BSC objected to the Caution evidence, arguing hearsay. Issue Is a caution label warning admissible if it is to prove a defendant’s state of mind? Ruling/Analysis The court affirmed the ruling. The manufacturer’s Caution was not hearsay because it was offered only to establish proof that BSC had notification of the manufacturer’s concerns about product implantation. This evidence was not to “prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) – rather, it was relevant in finding BSC’s state of mind at various times. United States v. Jefferson (1981) Facts D Jefferson appealed from his conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin and bond jumping. Issue Was a court letter and two mailgrams admissible as evidence? Ruling/Analysis The conviction for bond jumping was affirmed – the letter and two mailgrams demonstrated that D had received notice of the hearing which he failed to attend. This evidence does not prove the truth of the matter asserted. United States v. Saavedra (1982) Facts D Saavedra appealed her conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In the scheme, inmate would telephone individuals, pose as law enforcement, and then obtain personal bank information. Inmates would direct money orders made out to someone who would pick it up – D Saavedra. Issue Is the testimony of three victims of a credit card fraud schedule admissible in court or does it constitute hearsay? Ruling/Analysis The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the testimony was introduced to demonstrate how the card numbers were obtained fraudulently by those impersonating law enforcement. This provided circumstantial evidence that the conduct was intentional and that other members were also involved in the scheme. The testimony was not offered to prove that the statement made were true. Hanson v. Johnson (1924) Facts P Hanson leased a farm to Schrik, in return of receiving 2/5 of grown corn. Schrik’s mortgaged property was sold at auction by the bank, and a crib of corn containing 393 bushels was sold by the bank to D Johnson. P sought to prove ownership. P introduced evidence of testimony from when Schrik was husking corn, and verbally stated that the crib of corn belonged to P. A bystander testified to the same. Issue Are verbal statements, aiding in giving legal significance, admissible in court? Ruling/Analysis The judgment was affirmed, holding that the evidence was not hearsay. The court held Schrik’s conduct of dividing the corn satisfied the division and identity of who owned the corn - Schrik’s language, in identifying Hanson as the owner of the crib of corn, was necessary to prove the fact. His words aid in providing legal significance to the parties conduct and was a fact to be shown in the chain of proof of title. Creaghe v. Iowa Home Mutual Casualty Co. (1963) Facts P Creaghe sought to recover from D Co., an insurance company. D claimed his policy was cancelled. An insurance agent testified as to such. Issue Is an out-of-court statement between contractual parties admissible in court? Ruling/Analysis The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the insurer, holding that the testimony was admissible because it was part of the oral agreement meant to cancel the insurance policy. Oral agreements may be testified as to a conversation held between parties, and a witness to the oral agreement may testify. Under hearsay, relevant testimony between contracting parties may be admitted. Here, the agent testified that Osborn requested his policy be cancelled, which did not constitute hearsay. United States v. Montana (1999) Facts D Montana, the getaway driver, was convicted of bank robbery and sentences to almost 30 years. Dodd pleaded guilty as to actual robbery. Dodd testified as Montana’s witness, claiming that Montana hadn’t known Dodd’s robbery plans. At end of trial, Dodd have Montana’s mother a note, demanded money in exchange for testifying favorably to Montana. Next day, a deputy US marshal overheard Dodd tell Montana to tell Montana’s father “it’s going to be $10,000” for favorable testimony. District court allowed marshal to testify. Issue Did the marshal’s testimony as to what he heard constitute a “verbal act”, therefore being admissible in court? Ruling/Analysis The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the marshal had overheard a demand, thus raising only the issue of credibility of what the marshal was reporting. Performative utterances do not fall within the scope of hearsay, because they do not make any truth claims. Here, the marshal heard the demand “give me $10,000” rather than “your father promised me $10,000”. Such a promise would constitute hearsay because its value as evidence would depend on it being truthful. United States v. Zenni (1980) Facts Gov. agents answered a phone several times while conducting a search of D’s premises. Unknown callers gave directions for placing of bets on various sporting events. Gov. seeks to introduce this evidence to demonstrate that callers believed that premises were used in betting operations. D objects on ground of hearsay. Issue Are implied assertions hearsay? Ruling/Analysis Rule 801(a)(2): - Abolished notion that implied assertions are subject to hearsay Oral/written expressions are not hearsay unless its intended as an assertion(declaration) No. The court held that utterances of the unknown callers were nonassertive verbal conduct, in which an implied assertion can be inferred from. Under Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence from an implied assertion is excluded from the hearsay rule – here, the unknown caller’s language was not an assertion of a fact. United States v. Dullard (2003) Facts Law enforcement searched D’s home and discovered materials used for creating meth, as well as a written note stating that D’s house was being watched by someone in a black and white car. The note was admitted into evidence and helped lead to D’s conviction. D appealed. Issue Did the declarant’s note to the defendant constitute hearsay? Ruling/Analysis Hearsay – assertion by out-of-court declarant offered to prove truth of matter asserted The court reversed the lower court’s judgment, based on error in admitting hearsay evidence. The case was remanded for a new trial. The note was improperly admitted because the admission helped establish the possession element of the crime, and D was unable to crossexamine the declarant. The note raised an inference that D may have possessed illegal items in his home. When hearsay is unreliable evidence: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Erroneous memory Faulty perception Ambiguity Insincerity or misrepresentation
