Opinion ID: 2041077
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hearsay: Adoptive Admission

Text: Two hours before the robbery, Zielinski and store manager Rosemary Freeman observed the perpetrator speak with an unidentified man who referred to the perpetrator by name. Miller argues that the witnesses' testimony about this conversation constituted hearsay. He maintains that the trial court erroneously permitted this testimony as an adoptive admission. Zielinski testified during direct examination: Q. Lee Ann, Do you know the first name of the person who did this to you? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. Odie. Q. How is it that you know that? A. A customer had come into the store and said, `What's happening, Odie? Q. Who was that statement made towards? A. Towards the black male that was in the store at the time. Q. And that's the person you have identified in court here? A. Yes. Q. What happened after that statement was made? A. He looked at him and said, Hey, and kind of waved. Rosemary Freeman also recounted a conversation she overheard between the robber and the unidentified third party: Q. While this person was there, did anybody else come into the store and have conversations with this person? A. One of the kids. Q. Go ahead. A. One of the kids that did come in the store quite often and did come in and say something to the young man that was in the store. Q. What did the person say? A. All I heard him say was, Hi, Odie, how you doing? Q. In response to that statement, what did this individual do who had been in the store for a period of time? A. He was standing there talking to the boy. At the time I was waiting on some customers, so I didn't hear anything more. He was over standing by the magazine rack talking to him. And when he got ready to leave, I did hear him say something about, Well, I'll see you around. Maybe you can come by and we'll play some music or something, something to that effect. The unidentified third party's assertions were admitted as evidence that the robber's first name was Odie and would have been inadmissible hearsay. However, these assertions were admissible as an adoptive admission because they were made in the presence of the defendant and the defendant responded to the assertions in a manner which was at least equivocal, at most affirmative. An equivocal response to an assertion of fact which, if true, a reasonable person would be expected to deny, is an adoptive admission which may be admitted as evidence tending to show the truth of the assertion. Robinson v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 604, 365 N.E.2d 1218; Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2). In the case at bar, the robber's responses indicated that he heard and understood the statements addressed to him. One who is addressed by the wrong name would reasonably be expected to inform the speaker of his error, not make plans to meet with the speaker later and listen to music. Appellant's unequivocal response rendered testimony of the assertions and the responses admissible to establish that he tacitly admitted the assertion that his name was Odie.