Opinion ID: 1908937
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Courts in Accord with Our View

Text: Other courts, albeit a minority, around the country have adopted the same approach to the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence or Federal Rules-derived hearsay provisions. [6] In United States v. Reynolds, 715 F.2d 99 (3d Cir.1983), appellant Parran's co-defendant Reynolds had been arrested after attempting to negotiate a stolen unemployment compensation check. Id. at 101. Postal inspectors testified that after Reynolds's arrest he said to Parran I didn't tell them anything about you. Id. The government offered this testimony as evidence of a conspiracy between Reynolds and Parran, and of Parran's participation in the offenses charged. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that this evidence was hearsay as offered. The Court stated as follows: Reynolds' statement is ... ambiguous and susceptible to different interpretations. As the government uses it, the statement's probative value depends on the truth of an assumed fact it implies. Unless the trier assumes that the statement implies that Reynolds did not tell the postal inspectors that Parran was involved in the conspiracy to defraud, even though Parran was in fact involved, the statement carries no probative weight for the government's case. For if the trier assumes that the statement implied that Reynolds did not tell the postal inspectors that Parran was involved because there was nothing to tell, the statement has no relevance to the government's case. Its only relevance to the government's case is tied to an assumed fact of petitioner's guilt that the government argues the utterance proves. Thus, depending on the interpretation given the content of Reynolds' statement, it is either probative or not. Consequently, we believe that, as the government uses it, the statement's relevance goes well beyond the fact that it was uttered. It is not merely intended to prove that Reynolds could speak, or that he could speak in English, or even that he directed a statement toward Parran. Instead, the government offers it to prove the truth of the assumed fact of defendant's guilt implied by its content. Id. at 103. The Third Circuit addressed this issue again in United States v. Palma-Ruedas, 121 F.3d 841 (3d Cir.1997). Appellant Quinones was charged with, inter alia, participation in a drug conspiracy and the kidnaping of his erstwhile confederate Ephrain Avendano. Id. at 845. Under the government's theory of the case, Quinones and Avendano had met to discuss details of the drug conspiracy. After a deal had gone sour, other members of the conspiracy had held Avendano against his will for four weeks, transporting him from Texas to New Jersey. Avendano and his captors had arrived at Quinones's New Jersey house, then traveled to a house in Maryland. Quinones had also gone to the Maryland house, but in a different car than Avendano. Under Quinones's theory of the case, he had not been a member of the drug conspiracy and hence had not met Avendano previously, nor had he known that Avendano was in captivity. Id. at 857. At trial, Quinones tried to introduce testimony that he had said nice to meet you upon Avendano's arrival at his house to show that he had not met Avendano previously and did not know he was in captivity. The district court excluded this evidence as hearsay. The Third Circuit affirmed, reasoning as follows: Quinones makes a hypertechnical, syntactic argument by asserting that the relevance of the statement was not that Quinones really thought that `it was nice' to meet Avendano but, rather, merely that the statements were said. Quinones's counsel, however, undermined this argument in closing when he asserted that Quinones could not have been at the November 1994 meeting `because they never met before January 1, 1995.' While Quinones may not have offered the statement for its express meaning, he did offer it for the implied assertion that he had never met Avendano. Statements offered to support an implied assertion are inadmissible hearsay.  Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In Lyle v. Koehler, 720 F.2d 426 (6th Cir.1983), petitioner Lyle challenged his Michigan murder conviction on federal habeas corpus. He claimed that his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation had been violated by the introduction of letters written by his co-defendant Kemp while awaiting trial. Id. at 429. Kemp had written to two potential witnesses, outlining the (presumably perjured) testimony he wished them to give at trial. Eschewing a confrontational clause analysis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit employed a conventional hearsay analysis. The court found these letters to be hearsay, stating as follows: Believing the alibi to be false, the prosecution obviously did not seek to introduce the letters in order to demonstrate the truth of the particular statements they contained. Rather, the government intended to have the jury infer from the statements that Kemp was attempting to obtain fabricated alibi testimony, an act that revealed a `guilty mind' on his part regarding the shootings. This guilty mind inference in turn invited the jury to infer Kemp's substantive guilt. Thus, in determining whether the letters constitute hearsay, we must decide whether the inferences that the government sought to elicit by introducing them should be included within the set of `assertions' that the letters make.    Although we consider the question of the proper classification of the letters exceedingly close, we find that the inferences they necessarily invite form an integral part of the letters. They were introduced because by inference they assert the proposition of fact that Kemp and Lyle committed the robbery and hence need an alibi. Accordingly, we conclude that the letters are hearsay. Id. at 432-33 (citations omitted). In State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585, 590 (Iowa 2003), the petitioner had been convicted of possessing pseudoephedrine with the intent to use it as a precursor to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Police had discovered the pseudoephedrine (a common over-the-counter drug not itself illegal to possess absent an intent to use it as a precursor) in a search of Dullard's garage. Other items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine were also discovered, along with a notebook containing the following words: B I had to go inside to pee + calm my nerves somewhat down. When I came out to go get Brian I looked over to the street North of here + there sat a black + white w/the dude out of his car facing our own directionno one else was with him. Id. at 588. Over Dullard's hearsay objection, the State introduced the notebook at trial, arguing that the note, presumably identifying Brett Dullard by his first initial, was offered to tie Dullard to the garage and its contents, not for the truth of any matter asserted therein. The Iowa Supreme Court found that the words in the notebook were hearsay, because they had been offered solely to show the declarant's belief, implied from the words and the message conveyed, in a fact the State seeks to proveDullard's knowledge and possession of drug lab materials. Id. at 591. The court recognized that Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801 was substantially identical to Fed.R.Evid. 801, and that under the federal Advisory Committee's view, the notebook would not constitute hearsay when offered for this purpose. The court then stated as follows: The consequence of the committee's approach is to admit into evidence a declarant's belief in the existence of a fact the evidence is offered to prove, without cross-examination, just as if the declarant had explicitly stated the belief. Yet, if the declarant of the written note in this case had intended to declare his or her belief that Dullard had knowledge and possession of drug lab materials, the note would unquestionably constitute hearsay. Implied assertions from speech intended as communication clearly come within the definition of a statement under rule 5.801(a)(1). Unlike the committee, however, we do not believe indirect or unintentional assertions in speech are reliable enough to avoid the hearsay rule. We think the best approach is to evaluate the relevant assertion in the context of the purpose for which the evidence is offered. We recognize this approach will have a tendency to make most implied assertions hearsay. However, we view this in a favorable manner because it means the evidence will be judged for its admission at trial based on accepted exceptions or exclusions to the hearsay rule. It also establishes a better, more straightforward rule for litigants and trial courts to understand and apply. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d at 594-95 (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals of Texas also rejected the federal Advisory Committee approach to hearsay, concluding that `[m]atter asserted' includes any matter explicitly asserted, and any matter implied by a statement, if the probative value of the statement as offered flows from the declarant's belief as to the matter. Mosley v. State, 141 S.W.3d 816, 829 (Tex.Ct.App.2004). The court held that the words, Well, I can't watch them all the time were hearsay under Tex.R. Evid. 801 when offered to prove the truth of the declarant's implied belief that her husband had sexually assaulted their grand daughter. Other jurisdictions applying the common law, rather than rules-based evidentiary regimes, also retain the Wright v. Tatham view. [7] See, e.g., Ginyard v. United States, 816 A.2d 21, 40 (D.C.2003) (advice to urinate on hand was hearsay when offered to prove truth of declarant's implied belief that listener had recently fired a gun and needed to eliminate residue); Brown v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 171, 487 S.E.2d 248, 252 (1997) (question does Peggy know I'm here was hearsay under the common law when offered to prove that declarant was personally acquainted with Peggy).