Opinion ID: 1496306
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Out-of-Court Statements Introduced at Trial Over Objection of Defense Counsel

Text: Reed's claim is based on three instances where she alleges out-of-court statements were improperly admitted by the trial court over defense counsel's hearsay objection. This Court determines that Reed's claim, as it relates to the testimony of Officer Dull, has merit. Hearsay is any out-of-court statement that is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. State v. Kemp, 212 S.W.3d 135, 146 (Mo. banc 2007). Once counsel objects on the basis of hearsay, the proponent has the burden to demonstrate that the statement fits into a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Gough v. General Box Co., 302 S.W.2d 884, 887 (Mo.1957). See also State v. Porras, 84 S.W.3d 153, 157 (Mo. App.2002) (citing State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 234 (Mo.App.1995)). Reed correctly argues that the trial court improperly admitted McCauley's out-of-court statement that Reed was making methamphetamine in the trailer. Over defense counsel's objection, Officer Dull testified that McCauley told him he believed Reed was making methamphetamine in the horse trailer: [The State]: And what, if anything, did Adam McCauley tell you? [Defense Counsel]: Objection, hearsay. [The State]: Judge, at this time I move that these would bewhat I anticipate to be inconsistent statements, provide Section 491.074 as substantive evidence. [The Court]: Prior inconsistent statements? [The State]: Yes. [Defense Counsel]: To what, impeach your own witness? [The State]: Yes. [Defense Counsel]: She hasn't asked him to be declared a hostile witness and it's her witness. [The State]: My understanding of the law is that is not required. [The Court]: I'm going to permit you to proceed over the Defendant's objection. [The State]: What did Mr. McCauley tell you? [Officer Dull]: Mr. McCauley advised me that when he came homeor came to, I'm sorry, excuse me, came to the Reed's address, he observed Jessica Reed in the trailer and observed her with another subject. And I asked him what he waswhat he observed and which he stated that he believed [Defense Counsel]:Your honor, may my objection be continuing to all this? [The Court]: Yes. [Defense Counsel]: Because we have just had Adam McCauley testify. [The Court]: Yes, it may be a continuing objection. [The State]: You can go ahead and complete what Mr. McCauley told you. [Officer Dull]: He believed that Jessica Reed was making methamphetamine inside the trailer. The trial court erred in admitting Officer Dull's testimony because it was hearsay and there was no foundation to admit McCauley's alleged statement as a prior inconsistent statement. Section 491.074, RSMo 2000, states: [A] prior inconsistent statement of any witness testifying in the trial of a criminal offense shall be received as substantive evidence, and the party offering the prior inconsistent statement may argue the truth of such statement. To admit a prior inconsistent statement, [t]he only necessary foundation is the inquiry as to whether the witness made the statement and whether the statement is true. State v. Archuleta, 955 S.W.2d 12, 15 (Mo.App.1997). If a witness claims not to remember if a prior statement was or was not made, a proper foundation has been laid to admit the prior inconsistent statement. Id. In contrast, however, asking a witness nonspecific questions about a previous conversation does not lay a foundation to introduce a prior inconsistent statement. State v. Holmes, 845 S.W.2d 674, 676 (Mo.App. 1993). In its examination, the State failed to ask McCauley if he had previously stated that Reed was making methamphetamine in the trailer. A specific question is not necessary to lay a foundation, but the State failed even to ask a generally related question to lay a foundation. Id. The most closely related question posed to McCauley was whether Reed lived in the trailer, to which McCauley answered that he did not know if Reed was living in the trailer. Whether Reed was living in the trailer is too remote a question to lay a proper foundation to admit McCauley's alleged statement that he believed she was making methamphetamine in the trailer. Officer Dull's testimony was hearsay.