Opinion ID: 1197771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Testimony of Kevin M. Patterson

Text: 20. David next contends that the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of Kevin M. Patterson (Patterson) explaining the significance of a poem written in a card he sent to Debbie shortly before her death. Patterson and Debbie dated during the days preceding Debbie's death. David introduced the card into evidence; the State then proffered Patterson's testimony for explanation. The poem contained references to David's spying on Debbie and to Debbie's fear of David, upon which Patterson elaborated. 21. Patterson's testimony was not hearsay. `Hearsay' is [an out-of-court] statement... offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. SCRA 1986, 11-801(C). The State introduced Debbie's out-of-court statements for the limited purpose of explaining what Patterson wrote in the card. Her statements were not admitted to prove that David spied on Debbie or that she was afraid of him, and the court so cautioned the jury. See State v. Litteral, 110 N.M. 138, 141, 793 P.2d 268, 271 (1990) (Evidence inadmissible for one purpose may be admissible for other purposes under a different rule of evidence.); see also State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230, 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992) (The jury is presumed to follow the court's [limiting] instructions.). 22. David wanted the card admitted into evidence, but, without explanation, the card could have confused and misled the jury. The State offered Patterson's testimony to explain the contents of the card. See State v. Sacoman, 107 N.M. 588, 594, 762 P.2d 250, 256 (1988) (It is proper for the State to correct a false impression generated by the defendant.). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony for this purpose.