Opinion ID: 170226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drug Ledger

Text: Mendez objected to the admission of the drug ledger on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. The notebook contained lists of names with dollar amounts. These statements were offered not for the truth, of the matter asserted, i.e., that these individuals actually owed this money, but rather to show the notebook was a drug ledger, and therefore a tool of the trade. See United States v. Gonzales, 307 F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir.2002) (holding where prosecutors sought to introduce pay/owe sheets as a tool of the trade the evidence was not hearsay); United States v. Jaramillo-Suarez, 950 F.2d 1378, 1383 (9th Cir.1991) (holding admission of a pay/owe sheet for the specific and limited purpose of showing the character and use of an apartment does not implicate the rule against hearsay). Like the scales, baggies, drugs, and weapons found throughout Mendez's residence, the ledger is a tool of the trade and was introduced as an item common to the practice of selling drugs. The notebook also contained the name Mendez on the inside front cover. In United States v. Ashby, this court held a car title listing the defendant as the owner was not inadmissible hearsay where it was used to tie the defendant to a car used for drug running, not to prove that she owned the car. 864 F.2d 690, 693 (10th Cir.1988). Likewise, the evidence in this case was not used to show that Mendez owned the drug ledger, but rather it was introduced to tie him to the illegal drug activity. Even if the drug ledger constituted hearsay, in no way does this evidence implicate the Confrontation Clause. Mendez argues the author of the drug ledger would have known at some point that, if discovered, the ledger would have been used in a criminal prosecution thereby implicating Davis' definition of testimonial. Davis was concerned with statements made to police during emergency 911 calls and focused on whether the primary purpose of an interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Id. at 2270-74. If it is, the statement is non-testimonial. Id. If, however, the primary purpose is to establish or prove past events relevant to later criminal prosecution, the statement is testimonial. Id. That a piece of evidence may become relevant to later criminal prosecution does not automatically place it within the ambit of testimonial. At no point did the author keep the drug ledger for the primary purpose of aiding police in a criminal investigation, the focus of the Davis inquiry. Under Mendez's reading of Crawford and Davis any piece of evidence which aids the prosecution would be testimonial and subject to Confrontation Clause scrutiny. Such an interpretation is antithetical to the logic of the Confrontation Clause, the Supreme Court's precedent, and this circuit's case law. It therefore must fail.