Opinion ID: 1766558
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: HearsayCheck Carbon Copy

Text: In point three, Taylor argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the jury to view Rowe's checkbook that contained a carbon copy of a check dated November 27th. Taylor argues that the November 27th check is relevant and does not contain hearsay. In the alternative, he argues that if the check does contain hearsay, it is admissible as a statement of Rowe's state of mind of her belief that she was alive and physically able to write a check on that date or admissible as verbal conduct.
A checkbook was seized from Rowe's home during the investigation. The checkbook is a duplicate check design, which contains a carbon copy paper behind each individual check. Rowe's checkbook contained a duplicate of a check dated November 27, 2004. This check is made out for the amount of $390.00, but the pay to the order line is blank. Rowe's home telephone number is written in the memo line. The checkbook was admitted into evidence, but it was not published to the jury because it contained hearsay.
The check dated November 27th is hearsay. It was admitted to prove that Rowe was alive on November 27th, which was one day after Taylor left St. Louis. The check lacks reliability, as the payee line is blank, there is no evidence that anyone received the check, or that anyone had knowledge of the existence of the check. Further, Taylor fails to show that an exception to the hearsay rule applies. The date written on the check is not a statement of Rowe's present mental condition and does not reflect any belief as to whether or not she was alive on that date, and Taylor has not placed Rowe's mental state at issue. The check is not admissible as a verbal act, because there is no evidence that Rowe either completed or used the check as a legal document. It was not negotiated. There is no evidence that anyone received it, and there is no evidence of the purpose or circumstance under which Rowe wrote it, especially in light of the absence of a person or entity listed as the payee. Estate of Oden v. Oden, 905 S.W.2d 914, 918 (Mo.App.1995), dealt with completed legal documents acknowledged before notaries that were self-authenticated. It does not help Taylor, as this situation does not deal with a completed legal document. The check is hearsay and inadmissible, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to publish the checkbook to the jury.