Opinion ID: 1399686
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Agent Mackey's Statement Referring to Francine's Testimony

Text: First, Two Elk objects to the court's ruling during the following colloquy: Q [Prosecutor]: Well, did Francine Murphy advise you as toin the interview when the children were not with her? MS. MINER [Defense Counsel]: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. Calls for a yes or no answer. A [Agent Mackey]: Yes. Q [Prosecutor]: And she testified to that earlier today in this courtroom? A [Agent Mackey]: Yes. In his briefs, Two Elk never specifies which of the answers listed above he regards as hearsay. Instead, he complains that FBI Agent Mackey repeated a statement by [A.R.'s] caretaker, Francine, that between Saturday, October 15, 2005, and Wednesday, October 19, 2005, [A.R.] was out of Francine's sight only once early on Sunday morning, October 16. Had Agent Mackey actually repeated such a statement, there would be a potential hearsay problem. But, the court did not admit any hearsay in the colloquy quoted above. Neither of the prosecutor's questions called for a response that would include hearsay. The first simply elicited Agent Mackey's recollection of whether Francine had told him something (without straying onto hearsay grounds by asking what exactly she told him). The second elicited Agent Mackey's direct recollection of what Francine had said in her testimony that very day. Neither included a statement by an out-of-court declarant and neither offered such a statement for its truth. The district court did not err in admitting this testimony.