Opinion ID: 2450640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Testimony About J.P.'s Allegation

Text: Race argues that T.P.'s testimony about J.P.'s allegation was inadmissible hearsay. Race did not lodge a hearsay objection to this testimony during trial, and normally that would impede this court's evaluation of the merits of this claim. See K.S.A. 60-404; State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488, 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (contemporaneous objection rule requires party to make specific, timely objection at trial to preserve evidentiary issue for appeal); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84, 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (same). Here, we are persuaded to make a substantive, though not a procedural, exception to our ordinary demand for contemporaneous objection, because Race did make an unsuccessful hearsay objection to earlier testimony from L.A.V. having to do with J.P.'s allegation. L.A.V. explained to the jury how the cascade of accusations against Race began starting with the phone call to her from T.P. while L.A.V. was riding in the car with Race, T.R., and A.W. This meant that L.A.V. related T.P.'s statement that J.P. had told her grandmother about her private parts hurting because Race rubbed on them. This is the testimony that drew the hearsay objection from Race. The district judge overruled the objection, instructing the jury that this part of L.A.V.'s story was to be considered only to explain why she took the actions she took and not for the truth of the statement T.P. made to her. Like many evidentiary determinations considered on appeal, an appellate court reviews a trial court's admission or exclusion of hearsay statements for an abuse of discretion. State v. Miller, 284 Kan. 682, 708, 163 P.3d 267 (2007). `The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.' State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 530, 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (quoting State v. White, 279 Kan. 326, 332, 109 P.3d 1199 [2005]). K.S.A. 60-460 defines hearsay as [e]vidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated are not hearsay under K.S.A. 60-460. See State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842, 846, 235 P.3d 424 (2010). The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, the credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability, and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination. Becker, 290 Kan. at 846, 235 P.3d 424 (citing Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618, 634, 215 P.3d 585 [2009]). If a statement is offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to prove that the statement was made, it is not hearsay. State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 698, 915 P.2d 758 (1996). If relevant, such a statement is admissible through the person who heard it. Harris, 259 at 698, 915 P.2d 758 (citing State v. Getz, 250 Kan. 560, Syl. ¶ 2, 830 P.2d 5 [1992]). We also have held that statements offered into evidence not to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to show their effect on the listener do not constitute hearsay. Becker, 290 Kan. at 847, 235 P.3d 424 (citing Harris, 259 Kan. at 699, 915 P.2d 758). In our recent case, State v. Becker , the defendant complained of a number of out-of-court statements that came in through the testimony of various witnesses. The statements consisted mainly of threats to individuals such as: `[T]hey shut the door and said if anybody comes out of here we're going to shoot them,' and `They told me that they were going to be back at 5:00 a.m. and I better have drugs or money or they were going to kill me.' Becker, 290 Kan. at 847, 235 P.3d 424. We held that these statements did not constitute hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It was irrelevant and unnecessary to know whether the defendant would have shot anyone who attempted to leave. Becker, 290 Kan. at 847, 235 P.3d 424. Rather, the State offered evidence of the threats to explain why the people who heard the threats remained in the room. Becker, 290 Kan. at 847, 235 P.3d 424. A statement offered to prove the effect on the listener is admissible through the person who heard it. State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146, 162, 120 P.3d 760 (2005); Harris, 259 Kan. at 698, 915 P.2d 758. In this case, at least one of the purposes of offering L.A.V.'s testimony about J.P.'s allegation was to explain her version of the chain of events it launched: L.A.V. immediately confronted Race in the car in the presence of T.R. and A.W.; T.R. then told her mother that Race had touched her and A.W. too; and L.A.V. sent the girls to their rooms and talked to each separately before contacting the police. Whether T.P.'s original statement about what J.P. had told her grandmother was true was irrelevant to this purpose. The fact that the statement was made to L.A.V. and had a particular effect on her as listener were the salient points. The district judge's timely admonition to the jury emphasized the legitimate purpose of the admission, and we applaud his initiative in giving it. Although the judge might have prudently omitted the word necessarily in his final sentence, the admonition was otherwise a perfect prophylactic. It told jurors explicitly that they were not to use L.A.V.'s recitation of J.P.'s allegation as substantive evidence supporting a finding that Race was guilty of aggravated indecent liberties with J.P. We generally presume jurors follow the instructions given them in the district court. See Becker, 290 Kan. at 856, 235 P.3d 424 (appellate courts presume jury follows instructions). The district judge did not err in overruling Race's hearsay objection to L.A.V.'s testimony about J.P.'s allegation. Presuming the jurors took the district judge's admonition about the limited purpose of the testimony from L.A.V., they had plenty of eyewitness testimony from T.R. and A.W. to support the aggravated indecent liberties count involving J.P.