Opinion ID: 3175087
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Biological Mother

Text: [¶94] Next, Mr. Griggs’ claims the district court erred by allowing RM to testify that SM reported the abuse to her, but she did nothing about it. The defense objected to RM’s 29 testimony, and the State responded that it was not offering the testimony for the truth of the matter asserted but to show the effect it had on RM and her subsequent reactions to it. The State asserted it was important to show why the abuse was not reported earlier. The district court allowed the testimony for that purpose and specifically instructed the jury that it was going to allow RM’s testimony “not because it goes to the truth of what’s being said, but it goes to this witness’s reaction to what she was told.” [¶95] The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing RM to testify about SM’s statements. It appropriately allowed the testimony to show its effect on the hearer in accordance with Craft and the other authorities cited above. Unlike with TP, RM’s testimony was properly limited to a general statement about SM’s report, without recounting any details, and the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction.