Opinion ID: 1402588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Coffin's Statement to Thomas Peters

Text: {42} Coffin called his friend, Thomas Peters, as a witness to testify that Coffin seemed scared and teary on the night of the shooting and that, the next day, Coffin cried after seeing a news report on the incident. On cross-examination, the State, as a means of impeaching the witness, asked Peters if he and Coffin had discussed the case while Coffin was in jail. After Peters replied, Sometimes, the State further inquired, In fact, didn't he [Coffin] fairly recently tell you on the telephone that John [Saldana] was going to fix it? Coffin objected to the question on hearsay grounds, explaining, on the basis of a pretrial interview, that the State's question involved hearsay within hearsay originating with Saldana's statement to Coffin that he would fix the case. The State replied that Curtis told this person, `It will be all right, John's going to fix it, okay,' and that it was a statement against interest by Coffin. Coffin claims that the trial court erred in allowing the question because it elicited hearsay from Saldana. Coffin does not contest the admission of the statement to the extent that it contained an out-of-court statement made by him. Therefore, we review only the hearsay within hearsay issue. {43} The State's question does not implicate the hearsay rule because the State did not attempt to introduce Saldana's out-of-court statement for the truth of the matter asserted. See Rule 11-801(C) (defining hearsay); Ross, 122 N.M. at 20, 919 P.2d at 1085 (concluding that a statement not offered to prove either of its assertions was not hearsay). The State did not seek to introduce Coffin's statement to Peters in order to show that John Saldana would fix the case. The statement was relevant for at least two non-hearsay uses. First, the State charged Coffin with bribery of a witness based on Coffin instructing Saldana not to talk to the police and that Coffin would buy Saldana a plane ticket to get out of town and bail Saldana out if he got arrested. Coffin attempted to portray his offer of a plane ticket to Saldana as just trying to help out a friend. Thus, the statement made by Coffin that Saldana was going to fix the case was relevant in demonstrating, not that Saldana would, in fact, fix the case, but that Coffin believed that Saldana would attempt to do so. We conclude that there was no hearsay within hearsay issue. Cf. Ross, 122 N.M. at 20 n. 2, 919 P.2d at 1085 n. 2. Second, as the trial court seemed to recognize by allowing the question for the purpose of assessing Coffin's credibility, the jury could reasonably infer from a discussion about fixing the case between Coffin and Saldana that Coffin was attempting to frustrate the prosecution of his case. Thus, the question was proper in attempting to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. See Henderson v. State, 322 Ark. 402, 910 S.W.2d 656, 659 (1995) (Certainly a factfinder is entitled to know whether a defendant attempted to thwart his prosecution by secreting a witness who had implicated him in the charged offense.); cf. State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541, 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (concluding that evidence of flight is admissible and relevant to show consciousness of guilt). Finally, we note that Peters responded to the State's question about Coffin's statement that Coffin had told him that Saldana would make it better, but that he would do it in a legal way. Coffin does not allege that this response prejudiced him in any way, and we are unable to discern any possible prejudice. Rule 11-103 NMRA 1999 (Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. . . .). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing this question.