Opinion ID: 1542243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Errors as to Evidence.

Text: This topic covers admission of different pieces of evidence which appellants contend were erroneous. They are treated in appellants' brief under two headings. The first heading is concerned with the testimony of witness Tomsen and of witness Kaimann which has to do with the reputation of persons seen about the headquarters of this labor local. There is no assignment of error as to any of this evidence. Therefore, it is out of our consideration. The second heading is concerned with the testimony of several witnesses which appellants contend is inadmissible hearsay. While appellants assert that such character of evidence was permitted in connection with the testimony of twelve witnesses, they call attention to instances in the testimony of but nine witnesses. We need consider only these specific instances as it is fair to assume that they are the ones deemed by appellants to be most objectionable. The first of these is witness Wehrenberg. To understand the criticized evidence it is necessary to state briefly the situation of which it is a part. The act of extortion involved in this situation is the compelled payment to appellants of $6,500 by the so-called independent exhibitors at St. Louis  this payment going to appellants for their personal profit in order to secure a certain wage contract covering the services of moving picture operators who were members of this local union. The negotiations for a wage contract began in September, 1937, and continued until in November, 1937. The negotiations were conducted by appellants on the part of the union and by a committee representing the exhibitors. At some of the meetings (particularly the earlier ones) it seems that the above committee was present. At the later conferences, the committee seems to have been near the place of conference but it was represented by a member thereof who conferred with appellants out of sight and hearing of other members of the committee. In one such conference Kaimann was the member of the committee holding such private conference; and at another Arthur so acted. Upon leaving each of these two conferences, Kaimann or Arthur, respectively, reported the happenings thereat to other members of the committee awaiting him. The criticized testimony of witness Wehrenberg is his statement of a remark made by Kaimann in such a report. Kaimann on the stand testified he had made the remark which Wehrenberg testified he heard. This remark was that it looked to Kaimann like there was to be another picnic. Related to this testimony is another criticized portion wherein Wehrenberg sought to explain the meaning of the term picnic by relating the substance of a conversation Kaimann had, in 1936, with a newspaper reporter in regard to a similar extortion transaction connected with the 1936 wage contract. It seems that the reporter had obtained information that the exhibitors had paid money in connection with the 1936 contract and was questioning Kaimann as to the purposes of such payment when Kaimann replied that it was for picnics and other purposes. Of course, this testimony is hearsay but it was admissible here for the purpose to which the evidence was expressly confined by the court. The court limited this character of evidence to the purpose of showing the state of mind of the committee representing the exhibitors as to why this payment of $6,500 was necessary. This money was raised subsequently by the committee from the exhibitors and paid over to Weston. The gist of the unlawful act is extortion. Extortion involves a state of mind as an element of an offense under the Act. Unless there is some form of compulsion (either physical or fear) there is no crime under this Act. If the exhibitors had paid this money of their own initiative and voluntarily there would have been no violation of the Act. It was, therefore, essential to show that such payment was under such compulsion. The existence of this compulsion might be proved in several ways but one proper way is to show the state of mind under which the committee acted. The purpose of this evidence, as repeatedly limited by the court, is not to prove what was said at the conference between Kaimann and appellants or that the situation thought to exist by Kaimann and other members of the committee really existed. It is to show the state of mind of Kaimann produced by the transaction and that his conclusion was communicated to other members of the committee. Whether Kaimann was justified in reaching such conclusion is an entirely different matter. Whether justified or not, that was the conclusion which he stated and which, undoubtedly, had its effect upon the minds and the future actions of the members of the committee in making this payment. As to the testimony concerning Kaimann's conversation with the newspaper reporter in 1936, it was not introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the subject matter of such conversation. It was solely to define the expression picnic as used by Kaimann when he communicated his views to the committee. The conversation with the reporter had nothing to do with the issues of this case otherwise than as just set forth but it was necessary to know what picnic meant to understand this statement of Kaimann to the committee and their understanding of its meaning. Another criticized piece of testimony by Wehrenberg is that he was permitted to testify concerning a telephone conversation he had with Thimmig, who was another member of the exhibitors' committee. This criticism is not well founded since the ruling of the court was that the conversation should be eliminated except in so far as it bore upon the state of mind of the exhibitors. The conversation had to do with the urgency of collecting the $6,500 which was being collected by Thimmig and other members of the committee and was entirely proper. Other criticized items are in the testimony of witness Thimmig and are concerning the same matters as covered by the testimony of Wehrenberg, above discussed. The brief calls attention, in one sentence, to conversations witness Kaimann had with Thimmig who had, apparently, gone to appellant Weston's office for the purpose of arranging this pay off and had reported back to Kaimann. These conversations were, essentially, a part of the negotiations leading up to the payment of the $6,500 and were entirely proper. Two other pieces of criticized testimony were from witness Komm. In the first of these Komm was permitted to state his opinion as to the result the demanded wage increase would have had upon the ability of the exhibitors to continue business. Komm was an exhibitor and a member of this committee. His testimony was to the effect that he and other exhibitors would have had to go out of business had the wage scale been that upon which appellants were first insisting and which was reduced upon payment of the $6,500 extortion money. Such statement has nothing to do with hearsay. It was pertinent as bearing on the element of compulsion. The criticism stated to this evidence is that it was the statement of a conclusion and should have been preceded by testimony showing the income and upkeep of a theatre under another wage scale. The statement of the conclusion is proper. The verity of the conclusion was open to test on cross-examination either by the character of inquiry suggested in the criticism or otherwise. The other criticized testimony by Komm is to a telephone conversation with Thimmig in which Thimmig stated that the failure of Komm to make his contribution to the $6,500 fund was holding things up and that Komm had better give him this money or he would not have any operators in his theatre. This testimony, obviously, bears upon the compulsion and is proper. Criticism is made also of testimony by Louis K. Ansell and by Joseph Ansell. Each of these men was an exhibitor. The criticized testimony is the same in each case and is as to what Arthur had said to the committee immediately following a conference between him and appellants. This conversation is of precisely the same character as that of Wehrenberg and Thimmig concerning Kaimann's remark when he reported to the committee after a meeting with appellants and is covered by what is heretofore said concerning that testimony. Another criticized piece of testimony is from witness Arthur and relates to a conversation he had with the Ansells and Bess Schueler regarding their attitude on making a pay off if the matter should come up. This conversation is pertinent upon the matter of compulsion. Besides it consists merely of a statement that Arthur had a discussion with the Ansells and Bess Schueler at the time this pay off was being discussed and asked them if they were agreeable if the thing came up in that manner. It contains no statement of their reaction thereto. Two other pieces of criticized testimony are from witness Rosecan. The first of these has to do with conversations with Tom Canavan in connection with the use of sound apparatus. Canavan was in charge of a concern (dominated by appellants) which furnished sound apparatus in connection with moving pictures. When various members of the exhibitors' committee conferred with appellant Nick concerning sound equipment, Nick referred them to Canavan. The conversations here in question are such as witness had with Canavan concerning the sound devices after being directed to him by Nick. They have direct bearing upon the compulsion exercised by appellants toward the exhibitors and were competent. The second piece of Rosecan's testimony is as to a conversation with one of the Ansells concerning the use of sound equipment. It bears directly upon the matter of compulsion. The remaining piece of criticized testimony is by witness Sanowski. This is precisely the same kind of testimony as given by witness Rosecan as to conversations with Canavan. There was no error in the admission of any of this testimony to which our attention is called in the brief.