Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Letter as Hearsay

Text: The defense's attempt to offer the letter raised the recurring issue of hearsay. The defense claims that the letter was not an attempt at judicial suicide but rather was an expression of everlasting remorse. In the end, however, only the defendant himself could explain what the letter meant. But defense counsel chose hereas it did throughout the caseto try to place selfserving statements in Langley's mouth without calling him to the stand. A sentencing hearing is to be conducted according to the rules of evidence. La.C.Cr.P. art 905.2. The plea offer letteran out of court statement intended to prove the truth of the matter assertedwas hearsay. La.C.E. art. 801. No recognized exception to the hearsay rule applied, nor were there any indicia of the statement's reliability. The letter was properly excluded. Moreover, although Langley was not allowed to use the letter to argue his supposed desire to plead guilty unconditionally, he was not prohibited from putting on other mitigating evidence showing his acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, he has failed to show that he suffered any prejudice from the trial court's ruling. The argument lacks merit.