Opinion ID: 3066115
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Evidence Concerning Appellants’ Good

Text: Faith Belief That The Wage Payments Were Not Taxable Appellants contend that the district court erred under Fed. R. Evid. 803(3)17 when it excluded testimony of the Kahres’ 17 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(3), as it existed at the time of the trials at issue in this case: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (3) A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will. UNITED STATES V. KAHRE 45 contemporaneous statements regarding their good faith belief that the payments were legal and non-taxable. Appellants challenge only two rulings by the district court. In the first challenged ruling, the district court sustained the government’s objection to testimony in which the witness explained that Kahre told him coins were taxed at their face value. In the second challenged ruling, the district court excluded testimony that Lori Kahre instructed another witness to pay her own taxes.18 This proffered testimony, if admitted, “would have been hearsay . . . about defendants’ state of mind at the time, a subject about which they could be examined and cross-examined if they took the stand. But as a second-hand statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered . . . it is not only hearsay, but irrelevant hearsay.” United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100, 1110–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).19 Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in excluding it. Regardless, any error in excluding the testimony was harmless. See id. at 1108 (“Not every hearsay error amounts to a constitutional violation. At a minimum, a defendant 18 Because Appellants did not argue before the district court that the testimony was admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(3), we review for plain error. See United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We review evidentiary rulings to which no objection was made for plain error.”) (citation omitted). 19 Appellants make the additional argument that the district court violated their due process rights by admitting evidence of their good faith beliefs only if Appellants testified. However, the district court actually permitted Appellants to offer proof of their good faith beliefs through other sources. Appellants also testified during trial, providing the best evidence of their good faith beliefs. See Bishop, 291 F.3d at 1110 (“The best evidence would be the defendant’s own testimony. . . .”). 46 UNITED STATES V. KAHRE must demonstrate that the excluded evidence was important to his defense. . . .”) (citation and alteration omitted). Not only was the government’s case exceptionally strong, but Kahre, Lori, and Loglia each testified extensively about the good faith underlying their belief that the gold payment system was legal. See Bishop, 291 F.3d at 1110 (“Such [third-party] testimony may fall under the state of mind exception to the rule against hearsay, but it would still be self-serving, and duplicative of the defendants’ own testimony about their state of mind, if they chose to testify. . . .”) (internal quotation marks omitted).20