Opinion ID: 1908937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Wright and Waters

Text: The notion that conduct, verbal or non-verbal, that, on its face, does not assert X and may never have been intended by the actor to assert X, nonetheless may constitute an implied assertion of X for purposes of the hearsay rule was first supposedly declared in one of six opinions issued by the Exchequer Chamber in the 1837 English case, Wright v. Doe d. Tatham, [1837] 7 Ad. & El. 313, 112 Eng. Rep. 488. The case concerned the validity of the 1822 Will and 1825 Codicil made by John Marsden, which were challenged on the ground of Marsden's alleged incompetence. That issue was tried four times, was a legal cause celebre of the early nineteenth century ( see Emmeline Garnett, JOHN MARSDEN'S WILL at 1 (Hambledon Press 1998)), and eventually ended up in the House of Lords. The case arose initially when Rear Admiral Standford Tatham, a cousin and heir of Marsden, filed a caveat to the probate of the Will, within hours after Marsden's death and even before the Will and Codicil were offered for probate. Tatham claimed, alternatively, that Marsden was incompetent to make a Will and that the Will and Codicil were the product of undue influence by Marsden's steward, George Wright, in whose hands the Will and Codicil placed most of the Estate. The case was filed in Chancery, but the issue of Marsden's competence was submitted to a jury. Trial took place in 1830. Ninety-six witnesses testified35 for Wright and 61 for Tathamand a great deal of correspondence to and from Marsden was admitted bearing on his competence. The jury found the Will and Codicil to be valid. The presiding judge declared himself satisfied with the verdict, and a motion for new trial was denied by the Master of the Rolls. Tatham presented his motion then to Lord Chancellor Brougham who, having acted as counsel for Tatham in the matter, requested the assistance of Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Tindal and the Lord Chief Baron, both of whom opined that the motion should be denied. See Tatham v. Wright, [1831] 2 Russ. & Mylne 1. The bill was dismissed with costs. [2] One of the issues raised by Tatham concerned the correspondence. Chief Justice Tindal noted that [t]he importance of this long and varied correspondence in deciding on the competence of the testator to make his will is self-evident, and that if it was the genuine correspondence of Marsden, no one could hesitate to declare that the man who possessed sufficient vigour and energy of mind to carry on this correspondence must be held to possess a disposing power over his own property. Id. at 23. Tatham contended that the letters in question were actually written by Wright or someone under his tutelage, a suggestion rejected by the panel. Dissatisfied with the jury's verdict and the rejection of his motion for new trial, Tatham secretly entered upon one of the properties, executed a bogus lease, withdrew, and then, through his lessee, Doe, filed an action in ejectment against Wright, again raising the issue of Marsden's competence as a testator. [3] A great deal of documentary and testimonial evidence was offered on the issue, including a host of documents that were found among Marsden's effects upon his death. Among those documents were three letters written to Marsden decades before he made his Will, by persons who knew Marsden but who were long deceased at the time of the trial. Presumably in an effort to rebut Tatham's claim that Marsden was always incompetent, not just when he drew his 17-page Will and the subsequent Codicil, Wright offered those letters to show that the writers believed, from the nature of the letters, that Marsden was competent at the time the letters were written, from which an inference could be drawn that he was, in fact, competent, not only then, but when he later made his Will and Codicil. The trial judge, Baron Gurney, rejected the letters, but, of greater significance, he refused to admit the Will unless the sole surviving witness to ita witness hostile to Wrightwas called to testify. Without the Will, the judge directed a verdict for Tatham in the amount of one shilling plus costs, and two exceptions were notedone dealing with the rejection of the letters and the other complaining of Gurney's refusal to admit the Will. The appellate court announced that it was divided on the first issue but agreed that Gurney erred in excluding the Will. The judgment was reversed on that ground, without discussion of the letters, and a new trial awarded. Wright v. Tatham, [1834] 1 Adol. & El. 3. At that second trial, Baron Gurney admitted the letters, and the jury found for Wright. That decision also was reversed, the court holding that the letters were inadmissible. At the third trial, Justice Coleridge rejected the letters, a verdict again resulted for Tatham, and exceptions were noted. The six judges of the appellate panel, the Exchequer Chamber, were equally divided, which resulted in an affirmance of the judgment. Wright v. Tatham [1837] 7 Adol. & El. 313, 112 Eng. Rep. 488. The House of Lords, on writ of error, asked for the opinion of seventeen judges, and, on the basis of those opinions, it affirmed. The implied assertion rule emanates mostly from the opinion rendered by Baron Parke for the Exchequer Chamberone of six rendered by the judges of that Chamberfor that is the one most often quoted for the proposition that implied assertions, whether or not intended as such, constitute statements for purposes of the hearsay rule. Parke observed that the basis argued for admitting the letters was that they were evidence of the treatment of the testator as a competent person by individuals acquainted with his habits and personal character, that they were more than mere statements to a third person indicating an opinion of his competence by those persons, but were acts done toward the testator by them, which would not have been done if he had been incompetent, and from which, therefore a legitimate inference may, it is argued, be derived that he was so. Wright v. Doe d. Tatham, supra, 7 Adol. & El. at 383-84, 112 Eng. Rep. at 515. He noted that, although the letters would be admissible to show that they were sent, the contents of the letters were not admissible as evidence of the fact to be proved upon the issuethat is, the actual existence of the qualities which the testator is, in those letters, by implication, stated to possess. Id. at 383, 112 Eng. Rep. at 515. For that purpose, he concluded, the letters are mere hearsay evidence, statements of the writers, not on oath, of the truth of the matter in question, with this addition, that they have acted upon the statements on the faith of their being true, by their sending the letters to the testator. Id. at 386-87, 112 Eng. Rep. at 515. He rejected the notion that the act of sending the letters overcame the hearsay problem. [4] As noted, the case then proceeded on writ of error to the House of Lords, which requested the opinions of seventeen judges, among whom were Baron Parke, Baron Gurney, and Justice Coleridge, who thus ended up reviewing their own decisions. Nineteenth Century English law permitted that practice; Maryland law obviously does not. In his opinion to the House of Lords, Parke essentially repeated what he had said for the Exchequer Chamber. In Waters v. Waters, 35 Md. 531 (1872), the Court of Appeals cited Wright in particular Baron Parke's opinion for the Exchequer Chamberwith approval and held, as the Wright court had, that letters written to a testator that made no direct assertion of any kind regarding the testator's competence were inadmissible to prove the competence of the testator. The Court held generally that the acts and sayings of third persons with reference to [the testator], even though they may be construed into an expression on their part of an opinion or belief touching his mental capacity, cannot be admitted in evidence; unless connected with some act on his part which indicates his competency or incompetency. Id. at 544. The Court added: [L]etters of third persons addressed to a party, are not of themselves any evidence of the mental capacity of the party to whom they are addressed; and are not admissible for that purpose, unless it be shown that they came to him, and that he exercised some act of judgment or understanding upon them; and then they are admissible merely as inducement, or as connected with the acts of the party, whose competency or mental capacity is in dispute, and which the letters may serve to elucidate or explain. It is what he has done or said upon the occasion, and not what has been done or said by others, that is pertinent to the question in issue.  Id. (Emphasis added). Although that statement is much more indicative of a ruling on relevance than on the hearsay ruleindeed, the word hearsay is never mentioned in the opinionthe case, probably because of its reliance on Wright, has come to be regarded as a hearsay case, as establishing that statements or conduct offered as an implied assertion of some different fact not plain from the statement or conduct itself is hearsay if offered for the truth of the implied assertion. The hearsay nature of the Court's holding, like that in Wright, would seem to result only from this analysis: (1) The letters themselvestheir contentsay nothing about the competence of the testator. They do not assert that the testator was either competent or incompetent or that he had any mental acuity or defect from which competence or incompetence could be directly inferred, and thus have no direct relevance to the issue of the testator's competence. As the contents of the letters were not offered, directly, for their truth, the hearsay rule would not be applicable; the only ground of objection to admissibility of the contents of the letters would be relevance. (2) The only conceivable relevance of the letters would come not from the truth of the matters asserted in them but rather from an implied assertion drawn from a chain of inferences arising from the fact that such letters were written to the testator. That chain consists of the following links: (a) An assumption that the letters conveyed a message that would be meaningless to the testator unless he was competent to understand the message; (b) From that assumption, an inference (first inference) could be drawn that the authors of the letters believed that the testator was competent to understand the message; (c) From that first inference, a second inference could be drawn that, if the authors believed that the testator was competent to understand the message, he was, in fact, competent to understand the message; (d) From the second inference, the ultimate (third) inference could be drawn that, if the testator was competent to understand that message, he was competent as well to make a Will. There is, of course, some play in each of these inferences; one does not necessarily follow from the one before it. The first inference, for examplebelief in the recipient's competenceassumes the good faith of the author, that he would not be inclined to taunt or tease the recipient by sending a message that he knew the recipient would not likely understand. As to the second inference, there is always the prospect that the author may have overestimated the recipient's ability to understand the message, e.g., delivering to most anyone over 40 a 30-page manual on how to set up, program, and operate nearly any electronic device. The third inference is perhaps the most tenuous, especially on the facts in Wright, where the letters were sent between 23 and 36 years before the Will was drawn (and 26 to 39 years before the Codicil). The validity of these inferences would seem to depend, to a large extent, on what is known about the declarant and his relationship to the recipient. The less that is known (or sometimes the more that is known), the weaker become the inferences, and, because the ultimate result rests on a chain of the inferences, the weakness factor multiplies as one proceeds along the chain. [5] To the extent there was a legitimate hearsay issue in Waters (or in Wright ), it arose only from the ultimate inferencean implied assertion by an out-of-court declarant, the reliability of which depended on the credibility of that declarant, that the testator was competent to make a Will. As noted, the Waters Court did not go into any hearsay analysis or expound any view regarding implied assertions. It did not address any question of whether an implied assertion sought to be admitted for its truth could arise from conduct or words that were not intended by the declarant to assert the fact sought to be proved. Whether the declarant intended to assert anything regarding the testator's competence was simply not considered. The Court merely held that a third party's assumed belief or assertion, express or implied, that a testator was competent was not admissible to prove such competence unless the testator took some action in response or with regard to the assertion, in which event the assertion would be admissible solely to explain the testator's reaction. Analyzed in this way, it would seem that any hearsay issue that hinges on an implied assertion would arise only if the declarant intended what he said or did to constitute such an assertion or if the trier of fact would be required, in considering the evidence, to assume such an intent, whether or not it was alleged or shown. If there was no such expressed or necessarily assumed intentif, in the Wright and Waters context, the declarant did not intend his act or words to convey anything regarding the testator's competence and there was no basis for a trier of fact to assume such an intentthe act done or words uttered would be inadmissible not because they constituted an implied assertion but because they would be irrelevant; they would not make the fact of the testator's competence either more or less likely. The act or words would be relevant only if they were intended by the actor, or assumed to be intended by the actor, as an assertion with regard to the testator's competence, and only in that situation, if the assertion were offered for its truth, would the hearsay rule be applicable. Unfortunately, Wright v. Doe and Waters v. Waters have not been construed as drawing this distinction and instead have been interpreted as holding verbal and non-verbal conduct that conceivably could be regarded as an implied assertion to be one, without regard to whether the actor intended his or her conduct to constitute such an assertion. If the relevant inference could be drawn from the conduct, it did not matter whether the actor intended that such an inference be drawn, or, indeed, whether the actor actually held a completely opposite view. Evidence of the conduct was inadmissible because the imputed inference constituted, by legal flat, an out-of-court assertion offered for its truth. That rigid and illogical rule held sway in the 19th Century, but, as with other formalized rules of evidence restricting the scope of information available to judges and juries, it began to undergo challenge in the 20th Century. [6] As noted by Dean Mason Ladd in his article, A Modern Code of Evidence, appended to the American Law Institute's MODEL CODE OF EVIDENCE (1942), [e]arlier fallacies have been exposed, rules of evidence have been critically examined and are being tested upon the basis of logic, psychology, and trial experience. The realistic function of evidence in the solution of controversies of fact, rather than principles in the abstract, is becoming the basis of judging evidence rules. Id. at 334. That change was noted as well by Justice Sutherland in Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 381, 54 S.Ct. 212, 215, 78 L.Ed. 369, 375 (1933): since experience is a continuous process, it follows that a rule of evidence at one time thought necessary to the ascertainment of truth should yield to the experience of a succeeding generation whenever that experience has clearly demonstrated the fallacy or unwisdom of the old rule. An early inroad on the notion that an actor's intent is irrelevant in determining whether out-of-court conduct may be treated as an implied assertion came with the development of the Model Rules of Evidence by the American Law Institute in 1942. In § 501, the Model Code defined hearsay evidence as evidence of a hearsay statement or of a hearsay declaration. Both of those terms were also defined and both required that there be a statement. Section 501(1) defined a statement as including both conduct found by the judge to have been intended by the person making the statement to operate as an assertion by him and conduct of which evidence is offered for a purpose requiring an assumption that it was so intended. That precept was carried forth in the definition of hearsay statement in § 501(2), that a hearsay statement was a statement of which evidence is offered as tending to prove the truth of the matter intended to be asserted or assumed to be so intended ... (Emphasis added). That approach made the intent on the part of the actor the linchpin: the out-of-court conduct would not constitute an implied assertion unless either the court found that the actor intended such an assertion or the evidence was offered for a purpose requiring an assumption that it was so intended. In the absence of such an intent, the evidence may be inadmissible because of a lack of relevance, but not because it was hearsay. Although the development and publication of the Model Code served to focus attention on the shortcomings of Wright v. Tatham, the Code itself was not adopted in any of the States, so the criticism of the English decision remained largely in the commentary, where it abounded. See, for example, John Maguire, The Hearsay System: Around and Through the Thicket, supra, 14 Vand. L.Rev. 741; Ted Finman, Implied Assertions as Hearsay: Some Criticisms of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, 14 Stan. L.Rev. 682 (1961-62); Judson Falknor, The Hear-Say Rule as a See-Do Rule: Evidence of Conduct, 33 Rocky Mtn. L.Rev. 133 (1960-61). In 1961, the United States Judicial Conference approved a proposal to develop a comprehensive Federal Code of Evidence, and it was that effort that ultimately led to the rejection by most of the Federal and State courts of the conclusion espoused by Baron Parke in Wright. Pursuant to its authority under the Federal Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. § 2072) to prescribe rules of evidence for the U.S. District Courts, the Supreme Court appointed a special Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence to draft such a Code. The Advisory Committee dealt with the implied assertion issue through the definition of hearsay, and, in particular, through the definition of statement. [7] An early draft of FRE 801(a) stated that conduct of a person, either verbal or non-verbal, is not a statement unless intended by him as an assertion. See Minutes of Fourteenth Meeting of Advisory Committee, May 23-25, 1968 at 30. That articulation made absolutely clear that no conduct was to be regarded as a statement, and thus as hearsay, unless intended, by the person whose conduct it was, to be an assertion. In order to state that proposition in the affirmative, rather than the negative, however, the draft was amended to define statement as (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person if, but only if, it is intended by him as an assertion.  (Emphasis added). Id. at 33. That language was consistent with, though not identical to, the then-recently adopted California Evidence Code, which defined statement as (a) oral or written verbal expression or (b) nonverbal conduct of a person intended by him as a substitute for oral or written verbal expression. CAL. EVID.CODE § 225 (1967). The change in language provoked questions from Advisory Committee members as to whether limiting proposed Rule 801(a)(2) to nonverbal conduct might imply that section (a)(1) was limited to verbal expressions. The Reporter responded that oral statements had to be considered as conduct, too, and, after some further discussion, the revised language was approved. See Minutes of Fourteenth Meeting of Advisory Committee, supra, at 32. That textual language survived further review by the Advisory Committee, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Supreme Court, and Congress. Perhaps to clarify that the revision of the language from the early draft was not intended to treat verbal conduct differently from non-verbal conduct for purposes of the hearsay rule, the Advisory Committee attached a lengthy Committee Note to the text of FRE 801. The opening paragraph of that Committee Note states: The definition of `statement' assumes importance because the term is used in the definition of hearsay in subdivision (c). The effect of the definition of `statement' is to exclude from the operation of the hearsay rule all evidence of conduct, verbal or nonverbal, not intended as an assertion. The key to the definition is that nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one.  (Emphasis added). It is clear from the remainder of the Advisory Committee Note that, in addressing implied assertionsassertions based on conductthe Committee conceived that such implied assertions could, indeed, emanate, at least in part, from words uttered, but it concluded (as ultimately did the Supreme Court and Congress) that, even if such conduct could be regarded as assertive in nature, evidence of it should not be excluded under the hearsay rule. The full text of the Committee Note needs to be considered to understand the rationale: It can scarcely be doubted that an assertion made in words is intended by the declarant to be an assertion. Hence verbal assertions readily fall into the category of `statement.' Whether nonverbal conduct should be regarded as a statement for purposes of defining hearsay requires further consideration. Some nonverbal conduct, such as the act of pointing to identify a suspect in a lineup, is clearly the equivalent of words, assertive in nature, and to be regarded as a statement. Other nonverbal conduct, however, may be offered as evidence that the person acted as he did because of his belief in the existence of the condition sought to be proved, from which belief the existence of the condition may be inferred. This sequence is, arguably, in effect an assertion of the existence of the condition and hence properly includable within the hearsay concept. See Morgan, Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept, 62 Harv. L.Rev. 177, 214, 217 (1948), and the elaboration in Finman, Implied Assertions as Hearsay: Some Criticisms of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, 14 Stan. L.Rev. 682 (1962). Admittedly evidence of this character is untested with respect to the perception, memory, and narration (or their equivalents) of the actor, but the Advisory Committee is of the view that these dangers are minimal in the absence of an intent to assert and do not justify the loss of the evidence on hearsay grounds. No class of evidence is free of the possibility of fabrication, but the likelihood is less with nonverbal than with assertive verbal conduct. The situations giving rise to the nonverbal conduct are such as virtually to eliminate questions of sincerity. Motivation, the nature of the conduct, and the presence or absence of reliance will bear heavily upon the weight to be given the evidence. Falknor, The `Hear-Say' Rule as a `See-Do' Rule: Evidence of Conduct, 33 Rocky Mt. L.Rev. 133 (1961). Similar considerations govern nonassertive verbal conduct and verbal conduct which is assertive but offered as a basis for inferring something other than the matter asserted, also excluded from the definition of hearsay by the language of subdivision (c). When evidence of conduct is offered on the theory that it is not a statement, and hence not hearsay, a preliminary determination will be required to determine whether an assertion is intended. The rule is so worded as to place the burden upon the party claiming that the intention existed; ambiguous and doubtful cases will be resolved against him and in favor of admissibility. The determination involves no greater difficulty than many other preliminary questions of fact. Maguire, The Hearsay System: Around and Through the Thicket, 14 Vand. L.Rev. 741, 765-767 (1961). For similar approaches, see Uniform Rule 62(1); California Evidence Code §§ 225, 1200; Kansas Code of Civil Procedure § 60-459(a); New Jersey Evidence Rule 62(1). (Emphasis added). The adoption of FRE 801 marked a sea change in the perception of implied assertions. The great majority of courts that have considered the issue and most of the recognized commentators now agree that a person's conduct, whether verbal or non-verbal, will not constitute a statement for purposes of the hearsay rule unless the person intended his or her conduct to assert the matter sought to be admitted for its truth. Turning first to the commentators, some of whom were involved in the development of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Saltzburg, Martin, and Capra note that [c]onduct is not hearsay merely because it is offered to prove the truth of the belief that generated the conduct. Rather, under Rule 801, conduct can only be hearsay if the declarant intended by the conduct to communicate information. 4 Stephen A. Saltzburg, Michael M. Martin, and Daniel J. Capra, THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE MANUAL § 801.02[1][c] at 801-14 (8th ed.2002). They point out: The reasons for excluding non-assertive conduct from the hearsay rule are persuasive. A principal reason for excluding hearsay is because the veracity of the declarant cannot be tested by cross-examination. In the case of non-assertive acts, the author by definition does not intend to make an assertion, meaning that the risk of insincerity is substantially diminished. The actor is at least not trying to lie. Moreover, non-assertive conduct is usually more reliable than the ordinary out-of-court statement, because by conduct the declarant has risked action on the correctness of his beliefhe has put his money where his mouth is. Id. at 801-15. The fifth, and current, edition of McCormick, after raising the question of whether the letters written to Marsden, if offered as evidence of his competence, should be regarded as hearsay, notes that the basic answer under the Federal Rules and contemporary judicial analysis is that an out-of-court assertion is not hearsay if offered as proof of something other than the matter asserted. The theory is that questions of sincerity are generally reduced when assertive conduct is `offered as a basis for inferring something other than the matter asserted.' (quoting from Advisory Committee Note). 2 John W. Strong, Kenneth S. Broun, George E. Dix, Edward J. Imwinkelried, D.H. Kaye, Robert P. Mosteller, and E.F. Roberts, McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE 111-12 (5th ed.1999). Although acknowledging that not all of the alleged hearsay dangers have been entirely eliminated, the authors point out that the contemporary resolution of the issues involved in `implied assertions' reflect ultimately a compromise between theory and the need for a relatively simple and workable definition in situations where hearsay dangers are generally reduced. Id. at 113. Mueller and Kirkpatrick purport to see some limited lingering value in Wright's analysis of the so-called two-step inference (belief from conduct, fact from belief), but they acknowledge that FRE 801 rejects the broad proposition endorsed by Baron Parke and suggest that, arguably, it would be wiser to forget Wright than continue to discuss it. 4 Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. Kirkpatrick, FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 378 at 59-60 (2nd ed.1994). Weinstein, who was a member of the Advisory Committee, though noting that words and actions may convey meaning even though they were not consciously intended as assertions, points out that [a]ccording to the Advisory Committee, the `key to the definition is that nothing is an assertion unless it is intended to be.' 5 Joseph M. McLaughlin, Jack B. Weinstein, and Margaret A. Berger, WEINSTEIN'S FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 801.10[2][c] at 801-10 (2nd ed.2005). David Binder also confirms that the broad concept of hearsay emanating from Wright is inconsistent with the definition adopted in the Federal Rules and would encompass much of what is now considered circumstantial evidence, and there would be no end to what might be considered hearsay. David F. Binder, HEARSAY HANDBOOK § 1.10 at 1-17 (4th ed.2001). Some academics have challenged the wisdom of the decision by the Advisory Committee, the Supreme Court, and Congress to exclude implied assertions from the definition of hearsay and would like to return to their perception of the common law rule. In 1997, a proposal was made by Professor Paul Rice and his staff at American University Washington College of Law to achieve that result by rewriting FRE 801(a) to define statement as all speech and writing, as well as any action that communicates a message. See The Evidence Project, 171 F.R.D. 330, 362, 596-97 (1997). It does not appear that Professor Rice's proposal has received any serious attention by the Federal Judiciary. The Supreme Court seems quite content with the Rules as they are, as it has rejected occasional calls by Rice and others for it to appoint a new Advisory Committee to review those rules. The Majority suggests that the Advisory Committee Note has been the source of disagreement in the courts and among scholars, and posits that some Federal courts construe FRE 801(a) in accord with the Note, while other courts do not. It cites only cases from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and Lyle v. Koehler, 720 F.2d 426 (6th Cir.1983) from the Sixth Circuit, as evidencing the courts that do not. The suggestion that there is anything approaching an equal division among the courts is misleading. Apart from the fact that both the Third and Sixth Circuit courts may have altered their view since the cases relied on by the Majority, [8] all of the other Federal appellate courts that have considered the matterthe Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuitshave held unintended assertions implied from verbal or non-verbal conduct not to constitute statements for purposes of the hearsay rule. See Headley v. Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472, 477 (2nd Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 877, 116 S.Ct. 207, 133 L.Ed.2d 140 (1995); United States v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442, 448-49 (2nd Cir.1990); United States v. Giraldo, 822 F.2d 205, 212-13 (2nd Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969, 108 S.Ct. 466, 98 L.Ed.2d 405 (1987); United States v. Lis, 120 F.3d 28 (4th Cir.1997); United States v. Weeks, 919 F.2d 248, 251-52 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 954, 111 S.Ct. 1430, 113 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991) (According to the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the `key' to the definition of `statement' is that `nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one.'); United States v. Lewis, 902 F.2d 1176, 1179 (5th Cir.1990) (Rule 801, through its definition of statement, forecloses appellant's argument by removing implied assertions from the coverage of the hearsay rule); United States v. Singer, 687 F.2d 1135, 1147 (8th Cir.1982) (en banc); United States v. Perez, 658 F.2d 654, 659 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Jackson, 88 F.3d 845, 847-48 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.2005) (recognizing Rule, but finding that assertion was intended); United States v. Groce, 682 F.2d 1359, 1364 (11th Cir.1982); United States v. Long, 905 F.2d 1572, 1579 (D.C.Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 948, 111 S.Ct. 365, 112 L.Ed.2d 328 (1990); United States v. Zenni, 492 F.Supp. 464 (E.D.Ky.1980); Gaw v. C.I.R., 70 T.C.M. (CCH) 1196 (1995). That is true with respect to the State courts as well. The Majority cites cases from Iowa, Texas, and Virginia, but fails to mention either that the Texas ruling is based on a statute or contrary rulings consistent with the Federal approach in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. See State v. Carrillo, 156 Ariz. 120, 750 P.2d 878, 882 (App.1987), modified on other grounds, 156 Ariz. 125, 750 P.2d 883 (1988); People v. Morgan, 125 Cal.App.4th 935, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 224 (Cal.App.2005); People v. Griffin, 985 P.2d 15, 17-18 (Colo.App.1998) (acknowledging the rule but holding that evidence in question did not fall within it); State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299, 613 A.2d 242, 251 (1992); Little v. United States, 613 A.2d 880, 881-82 (D.C.1992); Burgess v. United States, 608 A.2d 733, 739 (D.C.1992); Hernandez v. State, 863 So.2d 484 (Fla.App.2004), review denied, 874 So.2d 1191 (Fla.2004); Bustamante v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind.1990); People v. Jones, 228 Mich.App. 191, 579 N.W.2d 82, 93 (1998) ( On Reh. Aft. Remand ), review of hearsay issue denied, 458 Mich. 862, 587 N.W.2d 637 (1999) ([W]e should not be surprised that the vast majority of cases decided under the Federal Rules of Evidence and their state counterparts that have addressed the issue have rejected the `implied assertion' theory); State v. Williams, 118 S.W.3d 308, 311-12 (Mo.App.2003); Jim v. Budd, 107 N.M. 489, 760 P.2d 782 (1987), cert. denied, 106 N.M. 95, 739 P.2d 509 (1987); State v. Ortiz-Burciaga, 128 N.M. 382, 993 P.2d 96, 101 (Ct.App.1999); State v. Land, 34 S.W.3d 516 (Tenn.Crim.App.2000) (recognizing rule but holding evidence intended as an assertion); State v. Collins, 76 Wash.App. 496, 886 P.2d 243 (1995), review denied, 126 Wash.2d 1016, 894 P.2d 565 (1995); State v. Kutz, 267 Wis.2d 531, 671 N.W.2d 660, 675-76 (App.2003), review denied, 269 Wis.2d 198, 675 N.W.2d 804 (2004); Guerra v. State, 897 P.2d 447, 459-62 (Wyo.1995). Before turning to Maryland, it may be of interest to note that Baron Parke's views expressed in Wright the spawner of the doctrine so soundly rejected in current American lawhave not been followed in some of the British Commonwealth countries and, if it had a free hand to do so, would probably have been overruled by the House of Lords in England. The holding in Wright came before the House of Lords in Regina v. Kearley [1992] 2 A.C. 228. The police raided the home of the defendant and found some drugs inside, but not enough clearly to indicate that they were for distribution rather than personal use. While at the defendant's home, the police answered a number of telephone calls in which the callers asked to speak with the defendant and to be supplied with drugs by him. The trial court allowed the officers to testify about those calls, and the defendant was convicted of possession with intent to supply. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the question was certified to the House of Lords whether evidence may be adduced at a trial of words spoken... by a person not called as a witness, for the purpose not of establishing the truth of any fact narrated by the words, but of inviting the jury to draw an inference from the fact that the words were spoken (namely that the defendant was a supplier of drugs). Id. at 230. [9] The five judges assigned to hear the case recognized the precedent of Wright, and split three-to-two to entertain the appeal and reverse. The opinions of the judges, in this instance, are more significant than the effect of their decision, as at least three of the fivethe two dissenters and one in the majorityconcluded that Wright was not consistent with modern practice and ought to be at least reconsidered, if not overruled. The only stumbling block, for at least one in the majority, was a 1965 decision of the House of Lords, Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] A.C. 1001; [1964] 3 W.L.R. 145; [1964] 2 All E.R. 881. H.L. (E.) in which the House of Lords determined (also by a three-to-two vote) that any further development of or changes to the hearsay rule should be made by Parliament and not judicially. That precluded the House, acting as a judicial body, from overruling Wright. The dissenters in Kearley were direct in their criticism of Wright. Lord Griffiths commented: Unless compelled to do so by authority I should be most unwilling to hold that such evidence should be withheld from the jury. In my view the criminal law of evidence should be developed along common sense lines readily comprehensible to the men and women who comprise the jury and bear the responsibility for the major decisions in criminal cases. I believe that most laymen if told that the criminal law of evidence forbade them even to consider such evidence as we are debating in this appeal would reply `Then the law is an ass.' Id. at 236-37. After analyzing a number of cases from Commonwealth countries and the decision of the Privy Council in Ratten v. The Queen [1972] A.C. 378, Lord Griffiths announced that he would be prepared to answer the certified question in the affirmative. Id. at 242. [10] Lord Browne-Wilkinson agreed. Indeed, after considering the relevant part of Baron Parke's opinion, he concluded, in my judgment the opening words of that passage show that Parke B. would have adopted the same view as the Privy Council in Ratten v. The Queen ... if the sending of a letter and its contents had itself been a circumstantial fact from which an inference (other than an inference as to the writer's opinion) could be drawn. Regina v. Kearley, supra, 2 A.C. at 285. Browne-Wilkinson said that he can find no reason why the evidence of multiple calls should not have been admitted and that he would have dismissed the appeal. Id. at 287. He urged Parliament to review the hearsay rule, as [i]n cases such as the present it hampers effective prosecution by excluding evidence which your Lordships all agree is highly probative and, since it comes from the unprompted actions of the callers, is very creditworthy. As in most cases, it is the views of the majority, not the dissent, that are most significant. Lord Bridge of Harwich, one of the three in the majority, after recounting the demise of Wright in the United States, stated that he fully appreciate[d] the cogency of the reasons advanced in favour of a limitation or exception to the operation of the hearsay rule which would allow the admission of implied assertions of the kind in question, but concluded that, in light of Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, supra [1965] A.C. 1001, it was not open to your Lordships to modify judicially the common law rule as expounded in Wright v. Doe d. Tatham. ... Id. at 249. However strong the temptation to legislate judicially in favor of what is seen as a `common sense' result and however tardy Parliament may appear to be in reforming an area of law which is seen to be in need of radical reform, he added, it was for Parliament to make the change. Id. at 251. Only Lord Ackner and Lord Oliver of Aylmerton seemed actually to agree with Parke's view in Wright, although Lord Ackner did note that if a convincing case can be made out for relaxing the hearsay rule's application to the type of situation which has arisen in this appeal, then it must be achieved by legislation. Id. at 258. A fair analysis of the five opinions more than suggests that, but for the governing mandate that any overruling of Wright would have to be done by Parliament, Lord Bridge of Harwick would have joined the two dissenters and Wright would have ceased to be the law in England. The debate over how to treat implied assertions arises mostly from the large universe of conduct that conceivably could produce an implied assertion, the debate often focusing on whether the conduct in question was, itself, assertive. In some situations, the answer is easythe nodding or shaking of the head in response to a question, pointing a finger at a suspect, showing four fingers when asked how many shots were fired. That kind of conduct is routinely held to be assertive because, absent some extraordinary circumstance, the court can reliably assume that it was intended by the actor to be an assertionthe functional equivalent of an oral response that would clearly constitute a statement for hearsay purposes. Other conduct is more ambiguous. Courts, including the trial court in this case, have wrestled over whether a question can constitute an assertion, whether there is any truth or falsity that can be found in a question, and have come to different conclusions. Judges and commentators have raised and discussed dozens of hypotheticalswhether the action of a sea captain who, after inspecting a ship, allows his family to travel on the ship constitutes an implied assertion that the ship is seaworthy, and what, if any, assertion may be implied from the act of a suspect, or a non-suspect, in fleeing during the pendency of an investigation. The notion of implied assertions has become entwined with the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, with the broader concept of circumstantial evidence from which inferences can be drawn, and with the equally broad issue of relevance, and the ultimate ruling on admissibility can depend on the analytical method chosen by the court to address the issue. All of this weighed heavily on this Court's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure when drafting the Maryland Rules of Evidence, and particularly Rule 5-801. Rule 5-801(a), defining statement for purposes of the hearsay rules, is identical to FRE 801. The Court's Rules Committee was, of course, well aware of the Federal Rule and the Advisory Committee Note. The Reporter's Note attached to Rule 5-801 in the Committee's 125th Report to the Court noted that §§ (a) and (b) of the Rule tracked their Federal counterparts. The Reporter's Note added that the Committee considered whether to define `assertion' but concluded that this was best left to case law development. Given the differing views regarding the kinds of verbal or non-verbal conduct that might constitute an assertion, the Reporter's Note recited the Committee's concern that the form of a particular statement not be determinative of whether it is an `assertion' for purposes of this Rule and observed that [t]his is a particular problem with questions and is a point upon which the decisions are not harmonious. In that regard, the Committee suggested, and the Court, in adopting the Committee's draft of Rule 5-801(a), approved, the following Committee Note: This Rule does not attempt to define `assertion,' a concept best left to development in the case law. The fact that proffered evidence is in the form of a question or something other than a narrative statement, however, does not necessarily preclude its being an assertion. Nor does the Rule attempt to define when an assertion, such as a verbal act, is offered for something other than its truth. A fair inference may be drawn from the Committee Note that the Court did not intend, merely by adopting the language of FRE 801(a), to make any determination as to the continued vitality of Waters v. Waters . Compare Committee Notes to Rule 5-607 (This Rule eliminates the common law `voucher' rule) and Rule 5-702 (This Rule is not intended to overrule Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364 (1978) and other cases adopting the principles enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923)) in which the Court did indicate an intended effect, or non-effect, of the Rule on current common law. The Court was aware of the Federal courts' view of the effect of FRE 801(a), however, and was aware as well that approximately 38 States had, by then, adopted codes of evidence similar or identical to the Federal rules. The Court understood, because the point was stressed in the presentation of the Committee's Report, that one of the important reasons to adopt a Code of Evidence modeled closely on the Federal Rules of Evidence was to have a national Federal and State case law research base to guide the future development and interpretation of Maryland's evidence law. In that light, it makes no sense to reject the overwhelmingly predominant view of both the Federal and State courtsthe national case law basethat the doctrine emanating from Wright v. Doe, flawed from its inception, has no present force and that the effect of the definition of `statement' is to exclude from the operation of the hearsay rule all evidence, verbal or nonverbal, not intended as an assertion. To hold on to the rigid formulation of one English judge espoused in an 1837 case that, in Maryland, would never have proceeded to the point that it did, and thereby put, or keep, Maryland out of step with most of the rest of the country on a point of law that should be uniform, is neither logical nor practical. The validity of what is attributed to Wright has been fairly debated by courts and commentators over many decades, and a broad consensus verdict has been returned. This Court should not just accept, but embrace, that verdict. Waters should be overruled. [11]