Opinion ID: 1942778
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McCurry Statement

Text: ¶ 47. Chandler testified on direct examination that when he went to Club Hollywood to look for his shirt, he saw McCurry on August 17, 2003. McCurry told Chandler that he wanted to talk to him. Chandler stated Well, at that point [McCurry] walked over to me. He spoke with me. He told me that he heard I had[.] The prosecution objected on the basis of hearsay. The trial judge sustained the objection. ¶ 48. Chandler argues that the statement was not hearsay because the statement was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, that being that Emmitt was going to get [Chandler]. Instead, Chandler claims that McCurry's statement was being offered to show the jury that Chandler had reason to believe that Emmitt was out to hurt or kill him. We find that Chandler's reason to admit that Emmitt was going to get him, as stated in his brief, was in fact being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Therefore, the statement was hearsay and properly excluded. ¶ 49. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err by excluding the testimony based on hearsay. Alternatively, assuming arguendo that any error occurred, the error is clearly harmless as Chandler placed before the jury that he was afraid for his life based on rumors he had heard. The jury also was made aware that Chandler believed Emmitt had stolen his marijuana.