Opinion ID: 69343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hearsay/Confrontation Clause

Text: Next, Salom argues Detective Rodriguez’s testimony concerning a tip he 8 received from a confidential informant constituted inadmissible hearsay. As noted above, we review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005). Generally, we review constitutional claims de novo. United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir. 2008). However, because Salom did not offer a Confrontation Clause objection during trial, we review that claim for plain error only. See United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1286 (11th Cir. 2009) (noting a hearsay objection does not preserve a Confrontation Clause issue for appellate review). Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). “Statements by out of court witnesses to law enforcement officials may be admitted as non-hearsay if they are relevant to explain the course of the officials’ subsequent investigative actions, and the probative value of the evidence’s non-hearsay purpose is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. . . .” Baker, 432 F.3d at 1209 n.17. “[T]he Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission of out of court statements that are testimonial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the 9 declarant.” Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1286. “[T]he Confrontation Clause prohibits only statements that constitute impermissible hearsay.” Id. In this case, Detective Rodriguez’s testimony regarding the confidential informant’s tip was not introduced to show that there actually was a marijuana hydroponic laboratory at the 159th Street house. Rather, Detective Rodriguez was simply explaining why he decided to investigate the 159th Street house. In addition, this testimony did not result in any unfair prejudice to Salom because the confidential informant did not suggest that Salom was involved with the 159th Street house. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the confidential informant’s statement as non-hearsay. Finally, because the confidential informant’s statement was not hearsay, admission of that statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause.