Opinion ID: 1983194
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the testimony of robert peterson

Text: The plaintiffs argue that the trial justice erred in admitting into evidence a statement allegedly made by Robert Peterson, head of bank security for Old Colony, who died prior to trial. The disputed statement was put into evidence by Baggesen, who said, Mr. Peterson stated to me that he felt that it [the conversation between Morinville and Flanagan] was a matter that ought to be turned over to, at least from the information that we had, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The plaintiffs' contend that the trial justice did not find, and could not have found, that Peterson's statement was made based on personal knowledge. General Laws 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-19-11 states: Declaration of decedent made in good faith.  A declaration of a deceased person shall not be inadmissible in evidence as hearsay if the court finds that it was made in good faith before the commencement of the action and upon the personal knowledge of the declarant. In Desmarais v. Taft-Peirce Manufacturing Co., 105 R.I. 438, 444, 252 A.2d 445, 449 (1969), we said that a trial justice need not observe ritualistic procedures in determining compliance with § 9-19-11. If it can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement by the deceased declarant that the statement was based on personal knowledge and was made in good faith prior to the institution of the action at hand, the trial justice may rely [on] such inferences and may, on that basis, admit such evidence without expressly finding compliance with each specific provision of the statute. Id. Here, the statement simply conveyed the thought processes of the declarant regarding a possible future event, it was not meant to convey factual information. And unlike facts, personal thoughts are prima facie based on the personal knowledge of the declarant. Further, nothing in the record indicates that the statement was not made in good faith. For these reasons and because it was conceded that Peterson died before the institution of this action, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial justice in admitting the statement.