Opinion ID: 1935215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: details of the crime appearing in the woonsocket call

Text: The defendant next claims that the trial justice committed reversible error by allowing Pennington to testify on redirect examination about details of the crime appearing in the Woonsocket Call, a local newspaper, allegedly in violation of the rules against impermissible hearsay. During cross-examination of Pennington, defense counsel elicited the fact that Pennington made out a report concerning Darcy Authier (Authier) and her husband's receiving harassing phone calls from someone claiming in-depth knowledge of the manner in which the crime had been committed. The prosecution repeatedly objected during this questioning but was continually overruled, finally asking for a sidebar conference. At sidebar the prosecution continued to press its hearsay objection. The trial justice disagreed, explaining that its not being admitted for the truth of it but rather to indicate that someone had some knowledge of the details of the crime. Although the trial justice stated that he would allow the evidence in during defendant's cross-examination of Pennington, he explained that he would permit the prosecution to clarify on redirect examination whatever is brought out during cross-examination. After the sidebar, Pennington testified that the report contained a paragraph not written by him stating that there were details that these calls were of [such] a nature    that [they] would not be known to the general public. Furthermore, Pennington testified that Authier told him that the caller had stated that he had killed Picard with a sharpened tube and had done such a good job they couldn't recognize her when he finished and that the caller was harassing Authier because she knew Picard. On redirect examination the prosecution introduced three articles from the Woonsocket Call containing details of the manner in which the crimes had been committed. It appears from the record that all three were published before the harassing phone calls began. In regard to the first article's introduction, the defense objected that Pennington was reading from a hearsay document. The trial justice responded, Well, that's true, but its with regard to the common knowledge and statement made by the witness. Thereafter, there was no objection that any of the other subsequently introduced articles were hearsay. It is well settled that a newspaper article is clearly inadmissible hearsay when it is offered to prove the truth of the matters contained therein. State v. Damiano, 587 A.2d 396, 398 (R.I. 1991). However, otherwise inadmissible-hearsay evidence may become admissible when offered for another purpose, such as demonstrating that a specific person or witness possessed knowledge of a particular subject, event or condition. See, e.g., In re Jean Marie W., 559 A.2d 625, 629 (R.I. 1989) (expert testimony to the verbal and nonverbal conduct of child made during the course of play with anatomically correct doll admissible to show child victim's explicit sexual knowledge). In the present case the articles were admitted to demonstrate that certain details concerning the method by which the crimes were committed were public knowledge. Their sole purpose was to refute defense counsel's assertion, brought out through Pennington on cross-examination, that Authier's caller had knowledge not generally known to the public. It was this very basis, that is, to show what was public knowledge versus what Authier's caller knew, upon which the trial justice first allowed defense counsel to elicit from Pennington statements made to Authier by the caller. Therefore, we are persuaded that the trial justice did not err in admitting the articles in question.