Opinion ID: 2387707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissability of Administrative Order

Text: The State introduced into evidence the DEP Order that occasioned the administrative hearing. This was an official, four-page document bearing the emblem of the State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. It was signed by the Commissioner of the Department. A segment captioned Findings of Fact stated explicitly that Vahlsing, Inc. was the owner of the building in question and included information in support of that conclusion. Vahlsing's initial objection that the Order was a nullity was properly overruled. He then objected to the relevance of certain portions of the Order if it was offered for its truth. The trial court indicated that the irrelevant portions could be kept from the jury's consideration through some device such as editing the document before the jury saw it. The State then asked its witness, the former Commissioner of the DEP, to read from the Order. Vahlsing immediately objected on grounds of hearsay, requesting a limiting instruction or a statement by counsel that the contents of the document were not being offered for their truth. Outside the jury's presence, the State conceded that the testimony was not being offered for the truth of the assertions in the document, but solely for the purpose of establishing what the order says, which was what the hearing was on. This concession should have prompted a limiting instruction under M.R.Evid. 105. [2] Vahlsing was told, however, that his remedy was to pursue the matter on cross-examination. He received neither a limiting instruction to the jury from the court nor a statement from opposing counsel in the jury's presence concerning the limited purpose of the testimony. The witness was permitted to read from the Order that Vahlsing, Inc. was the owner of the building in question, and ultimately the document went to the jury. Admission of this evidence without the requested limiting instruction was clearly error. As to the proposition that Vahlsing, Inc. (rather than McCain) owned the building, the document and the testimony were concededly inadmissable hearsay. M.R. Evid. 801(c). See also M.R.Evid. 803(8)(B)(iv). The witness admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the matters in the document. At the very least, Vahlsing was entitled under M.R.Evid. 105 to an instruction that the jury should not consider the document (or the reading of it by the witness) for the truth of the propositions it contained. We conclude, nevertheless, that admission of the document and the testimony without the limiting instruction was harmless error because of the overwhelming evidence of Vahlsing, Inc.'s ownership of the building in question. The lawyer that represented McCain at the time of its purchase of assets from Vahlsing, Inc. in 1976 testified that the transaction reflected in the purchase documents did not include this building. The Easton Town Manager testified that he visited the building in 1983 with McCain personnel and that McCain personnel denied that McCain owned the building. He testified that in 1983 he also visited the building with Vahlsing and that during the visit Vahlsing never denied his company's ownership of the building; said that he could get rid of the chemical materials in it; offered to give the building to the Town; and referred to salvaging the rafters in the building. The Town Manager testified that in ongoing contacts with Vahlsing he never denied his company's ownership of the building. The evidence showed that generally, Vahlsing took pains to avoid inappropriate taxation, yet never did he challenge the Town's ongoing taxation of this building. Instead, he paid back taxes on behalf of Vahlsing, Inc. to remove a tax lien on this and other locations. When Vahlsing was asked on the stand why he did not deny Vahlsing, Inc.'s ownership of the building to the Town Manager he had no adequate explanation except to say that generally I don't, as I conduct myself, attempt to inform someone else about someonefor instance, Mr. Beaton, about someone else's property. I just don't do that. Moreover, evidence was introduced that subsequent to the alleged sale to McCain, Vahlsing, Inc. paid rent to the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad for the underlying land on which the building was situated. Specifically, in a sale of railroad ties and other materials to the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad from Vahlsing, Inc., Vahlsing permitted an amount to be deducted for back rent. As contrary evidence Vahlsing argued that the transaction with McCain had involved the entire potato processing complex and that this building was a potato hut, part of that complex, and therefore included within the sale. His explanation of items like the tax payments and lease payments appears primarily to have been that his attention was not directed to this particular building, a very small item in the overall scope of his business affairs. In addition, he presented the testimony of a farmer, corroborated by another witness, that he had been able to obtain, from McCain personnel and with the assistance of McCain personnel, chemicals stored in the building. There was testimony, however, that the person who authorized the acquisition of these chemicals, although the head of the potato procurement office at McCain, had also been general manager of the Vahlsing, Inc. operation and the farmer testified that he did not know what entity this individual was representing in giving him the chemicals. In other words, the evidence of Vahlsing, Inc.'s ownership of the building is overwhelming. It is true that we have stated that written evidence is more significant to a jury than oral testimony and therefore less likely to be considered harmless error. See Morgan v. Paine, 312 A.2d 178, 185-86 (Me.1973). In light of the particular strength of the evidence that Vahlsing, Inc. had not sold the building to McCain in 1976, however, we are confident that this case meets the test of harmless error, namely, that it is highly probable that the error [in admitting the document] did not affect the judgment. State v. Huff, 469 A.2d 1251, 1253-54 (Me.1984). [3]