Opinion ID: 784093
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wheeler's Excluded Hearsay Testimony

Text: 29 Wheeler also argues that he should be granted a new trial on the basis that the district court wrongfully excluded Wheeler's rebuttal of the testimony of Scott Stone, an interviewer. Stone testified that Wheeler raised his voice in the 1998 interview, and that this reminded him of a similar incident in a 1997 meeting where Wheeler, as a temporary employee, had also raised his voice. Wheeler wished to take the stand in rebuttal to testify that, in 1997, Mr. Stone had mistaken Wheeler for someone else and that there was another gentleman who made a sarcastic remark that Mr. Stone got mad about. However, during a sidebar conference before Wheeler took the stand, MHTC's attorney objected to this anticipated testimony on the grounds of hearsay. The district court agreed, allowing Wheeler to testify about the meeting, but not about the other gentleman's sarcastic remark. 30 Wheeler's proposed rebuttal testimony regarding the other gentleman's sarcastic remark was not hearsay. Out-of-court statements constitute hearsay only when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 219, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974); Fed. R.Evid. 801(c). Evidence of the sarcastic remark, even if Wheeler could have remembered the content of the remark (which he could not), was not offered to prove the truth of that remark, but only to show that Stone was mistaken about who had raised his voice in the 1997 meeting. 31 As previously noted, however, [a] new trial is not warranted on the basis of an evidentiary ruling unless the evidence was so prejudicial that a new trial would likely produce a different result. Bevan, 118 F.3d at 612. Wheeler was not prohibited from testifying about the 1997 meeting or from denying Stone's assertion that Wheeler had appeared angry at this meeting. We believe that this afforded Wheeler a sufficient opportunity to rebut Stone's testimony and that being prevented from testifying about the substance of the sarcastic remark is not reversible error. 32