Opinion ID: 2105313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Exclusion of Affidavit

Text: An affidavit may be admitted upon stipulation by both parties. State v. Zimmerman, 886 S.W.2d 684, 691 (Mo. App.1994). In this case, the State vehemently oppose[d] the introduction of the affidavit. Therefore, the general ban on hearsay evidence applies. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Cox about the friend: Q: Before the time that you went and spoke with your attorney on Thursday, did you ever tell [the friend] that you had been with two men when the Walters were murdered? A: No, ma'am.    Q: Did you see [the friend] between the time of the murders and Thursday when you go and talk to your attorney? A: No, ma'am. Q: You didn't see her at a convenience store or a gas station? A: No, ma'am. Q: Never talked to her  have you ever talked to her about these murders? A: No, ma'am ... The affidavit alleged that Cox had spoken about the murders at a Jiffy Stop with the friend, who advised her to go to the police. Defendant claims that the affidavit contained a prior inconsistent statement by Cox. The foundation for a prior inconsistent statement is an inquiry of the witness (1) whether she made the statement and, (2) whether the statement is true. State v. Bowman, 741 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 829, 109 S.Ct. 83, 102 L.Ed.2d 60 (1988). While defense counsel asked Cox if she made the statement, counsel never asked if the prior inconsistent statement was true. A proper foundation for impeachment did not occur. Moreover, before a document may be received in evidence, it must meet other foundational requirements, such as authentication and hearsay. Hadlock v. Director of Revenue, 860 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Mo. banc 1993). First, because the friend was not present to introduce or authenticate the affidavit or the statement, there was no foundation from personal information. Second, because the affidavit was an out-of-court statement itself, and contained yet another out-of-court statement, it was hearsay within hearsay. Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only where both hearsay statements are within exceptions to the hearsay rule. State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373, 377 (Mo. banc 1997). In sum, the affidavit was never subject to cross-examination. There was no opportunity to examine the statement for credibility. State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351, 126 S.W.2d 256, 259 (1939). The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the affidavit.