Opinion ID: 1399686
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agent Ramirez's Reiteration of Ben Murphy Sr.'s Statement

Text: Second, Two Elk argues that the court improperly admitted Agent Ramirez's reiteration of Ben Sr.'s assertion that he had not assaulted A.R. More particularly, the prosecutor asked Agent Ramirez, And what was [Ben Sr.'s] response when you asked him about his involvement with the A.R. matter? After the defense counsel objected and the judge overruled the objection, Agent Ramirez answered, He denied doing it and mentioned that he was in jail during the time that it could have happened. The government argues (1) that the statement is not hearsay under United States v. Malik, 345 F.3d 999, 1001 (8th Cir.2003), and (2) that, regardless, any error was harmless because the testimony was cumulative. The Malik court held that a statement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted if it elucidates the reasons for or propriety of a police investigation. 345 F.3d at 1001; see also Suggs v. Stanley, 324 F.3d 672, 681-82 (8th Cir.2003) (upholding admission of officer's statement about what dispatcher told him because it was offered to show why officer went to a specific house); United States v. King, 36 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 1994). In this regard, the government ventures that the FBI investigators decided not to investigate Ben Sr. thoroughly because he denied assaulting A.R. Thus, the government claims it offered the statement to explain why the government turned its investigatory eye elsewhere, not for the truth of the matter asserted. The government's argument stretches Malik too far. First, Agent Ramirez was not involved in the A.R. assault investigation. Rather, he was tasked with investigating the alleged inappropriate touching of an 11-year-old female at the school at which Ben Sr. worked. Second, it seems implausible that the FBI investigators would simply accept a suspect's denial of liability and turn their attention elsewhere. In this regard, the statement is a fairly flimsy rationale for the FBI's investigative steps and it is exceedingly unlikely that it was offered for this purpose. Moreover, in Malik, the court noted that the trial court had instructed the jury to consider the evidence only as an elucidation of the officers' reasons for stopping the defendant, after the defendant introduced evidence suggesting that the officers planted a gun on the defendant. See Malik, 345 F.3d at 1002. Here, there was no such limiting instruction, nor was any defense tendered in this case dependent upon the motives of the officers in investigating Two Elk. Cf. King, 36 F.3d at 732 (noting court's concern[] that the jury's use of [the non-hearsay testimony] was not appropriately limited by an instruction from the court ...). With no other plausible justification for admitting the statement, the court erred as a matter of law and thereby abused its discretion. Thus, we must address the prejudicial effect of the hearsay. Two Elk's theory at trial was that A.R.'s injuries occurred after he moved out and that Ben Sr. was a prime potential suspect whom the FBI all but ignored. As such, Ben Sr.'s denial of culpability arguably could have had an effect on the jury, especially when repeated by an FBI Agent. Yet Ben Sr.'s denial was intertwined with his statement that he was in jail at the time the assault occurred. And the jury heard that Ben Sr. was incarcerated until Sunday at 6 p.m. or so on multiple occasions prior to Agent Ramirez's testimony. Indeed, Two Elk's defense clamored throughout the trial that A.R.'s injuries might well have occurred after Ben Sr. returned home. No juror would have been surprised to learn that a potential suspect denied the conduct in question, no juror would have been likely to accept such a denial without skepticism, and no juror would have been shocked to learn that Ben Sr. was in jail until Sunday evening. Additionally, as detailed above, the prosecution's strong case against Two Elk, stood on the shoulders of Two Elk's own recorded confession. Thus, we do not believe the court's erroneous evidentiary ruling influenced the verdict.