Opinion ID: 1196216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preliminary Determination

Text: Whether a party manifested an adoption of another person's statement is a preliminary question governed by HRE Rule 104. See Commentary to HRE Rule 803. Rule 104 provides in relevant part: (a) Questions of admissibility generally. Preliminary questions concerning ... the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsection (b). In making its determination the court is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. (b) Relevancy conditioned on fact. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition. In addressing preliminary questions of admissibility under Rule 104(a): [T]he judge will of necessity receive evidence pro and con on the issue. The rule... provides that the rules of evidence in general do not apply to this process ... and that the judge should be empowered to hear any relevant evidence, such as affidavits or other reliable hearsay. This view is reinforced by practical necessity in certain situations. An item, offered and objected to, may itself be considered in ruling on admissibility, though not yet admitted into evidence. Commentary to HRE Rule 104 (citing Advisory Committee's Note to Fed.R.Evid. 104(a)). Where the ... facts necessary [to] admissibility ... are disputed, the offering party has the burden [of proof] ... by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. McGriff, 76 Hawai`i 148, 157, 871 P.2d 782, 791 (1994) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 176, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). However, when dealing with a matter of conditional relevancy under HRE Rule 104(b), factual issues ... are properly within the province of the jury rather than the court, subject to preliminary determination by the court that sufficient foundation has been laid to support a determination by the jury that the condition has been fulfilled. As with other factual determinations, the proponent may offer evidence in support of the condition, the opponent may offer contrary evidence, and the jury rather than the judge must reconcile the dispute. Commentary to HRE Rule 104. When determining whether sufficient foundation has been laid under HRE Rule 104(b), the judge neither weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the [proponent] has proved the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). [T]he court may consider only evidence admissible under the rules of evidence since the jury will have only such evidence before it when it makes the final determination of the existence of the preliminary fact. Carlson, 808 P.2d at 1007 (citations omitted); see also Wright and Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5055 (Supp.1999). Courts and scholars are split on whether adoption of another's statement is a preliminary question of fact for the trial judge under Rule 104(a) or a question of conditional relevancy under Rule 104(b). See Carlson, 808 P.2d at 1007-09 (analyzing this issue to determine whether the defendant's nonverbal conduct constituted an adoptive admission). The Oregon Supreme Court determined that whether a statement is adopted as an admission is a preliminary question of fact for the trial judge based on: (1) the language of the rule; (2) the fact that the question of adoptive admission is one of competency and not of relevancy; and (3) the policy of preventing jury contamination. Id. We are persuaded by the reasoning of the court in Carlson and adopt that court's analysis herein. First, the language of HRE Rule 104(a) assigns to the trial judge the responsibility of making preliminary determinations regarding, inter alia, the admissibility of evidence. The commentary to the rule suggests that admissibility of hearsay falls within the scope of HRE Rule 104(a). The adoptive admission sought to be admitted here implicates an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, whether a person has manifested an adoption of or belief in the truth of another's statement is a preliminary fact to be determined by the judge within the scope of HRE Rule 104(a). Second, HRE Rule 104 is basically divided between questions of competence (subparagraph (a)) and relevance (subparagraph (b)). Competence, in this context, means whether evidence is admissible under one of the policy-based exclusionary rules, such as the rule against hearsay. Carlson, 808 P.2d at 1008 (citation omitted). The manifestation of adoption of or belief in another's statement involves a preliminary question of fact on which the competency, and thus the admissibility, of the evidence depends. Id. at 1008-09. Third, the policy of preventing the trier of fact from considering the possible truthfulness of out-of-court statements, without sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, would not be served by sending the determination of the predicate facts to the jury. In weighing whether conduct rose to the level of adoption of or belief in another's statement, the jury would necessarily be made privy to not only the evidence about the conduct and the surrounding circumstances, but also the out-of-court statement itself. If the jury determines that the defendant did not manifest an adoption of the statement, jury contamination would already have occurred, the impact of which would be impossible to determine. See Carlson, 808 P.2d at 1009 (citations omitted). Additionally, a general verdict of guilt or acquittal would not apprise the court or the parties as to how the jury resolved the hearsay issue. Thus, appellate review of the jury's finding would be impossible unless a special set of preliminary jury findings were made part of the record. See id. Furthermore, our determination that whether a defendant has adopted a statement is a preliminary question of fact for the trial judge is consistent with the holding in Hoffman that, [b]efore admitting a proffered admission by silence, the trial court must preliminarily determine that the Defendant actually heard and comprehended the effect of the words spoken and that under the circumstances an innocent Defendant would normally be induced to respond. Hoffman, 73 Haw. at 49, 828 P.2d at 810. This determination is also consistent with the policy expressed in HRE Rule 104(c), which states: Hearings on ... preliminary matters shall be ... conducted [out of the hearing of the jury] when the interests of justice require.... Accordingly, we hold that whether a defendant has manifested an adoption of or belief in another's statement is a preliminary question of fact for the trial judge under HRE Rule 104(a).