Opinion ID: 1899552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Based Upon Hearsay

Text: The defendant argues that the testimony of Goodwin and of Detective Robinson regarding serial numbers was either hearsay, or based upon hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. The only timely objection made by defense counsel was that part of Robinson's testimony was non-responsive. We have recently stated that under Maine law the failure to strike a non-responsive answer is error only when the answer is inadmissible on some other ground. State v. Farris, Me., 420 A.2d 928, 931 (1980). When an objection was made solely on the ground of the non-responsiveness of the answer, no cognizable ground of error was preserved for appellate review. Id. at 931-32. The defendant did not object to the serial number testimony until after the jury deliberations had begun. That objection was not timely. See M.R.Evid. 103(a)(1); Michaud v. Steckino, Me., 390 A.2d 524, 531-32 (1978). To allow an initial objection, after the jury has retired, to evidence previously admitted would deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to obviate any defect. Cf. Field and Murray, Maine Evidence § 103.2 (1976). On appeal, the defendant argues that the testimony of Detective Robinson and of Goodwin concerning the comparison of a serial number in Robinson's possession with the number on an outboard motor in Goodwin's possession was based upon hearsay. We note that in fact the source of the serial number in Robinson's possession was not explored at trial. However, Winters did testify that he obtained the serial number of his stolen motor, and passed that number along to the police. Assuming that Winters was Robinson's source, the record indicates that Winters obtained the number from a store where he had purchased the motor. Upon a proper objection, the trial court would have excluded the evidence as hearsay or, at the very least, limited the use of the comparison testimony because a proper foundation had not been laid to show that the serial number in Robinson's possession was the serial number of the motor taken from Winters. See M.R.Evid. 602, 402, 403; cf. State v. Porter, Me., 404 A.2d 590, 597 (1979). We have recently rejected the doctrine, followed in several other jurisdictions, that the admission without objection of inadmissible hearsay in criminal proceedings may not be error. See State v. True, Me., 438 A.2d 460, 468 (1981). Rather, we examine the particular circumstances of the case to determine whether the obviousness of the error and the seriousness of the injustice done to the defendant are so great the Law Court cannot in good conscience let the conviction stand. Id. at 469. One element of the offense of theft by receiving stolen property is that the property received by the defendant must in fact be stolen property. See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 359; State v. Levi, Me., 384 A.2d 40, 41 (1978); 66 Am.Jur.2d, Receiving and Transporting Stolen Property, § 7 (1973). In the instant case, the evidence requires a finding that only Winters' outboard motor, not any other motor, was stolen. Therefore, it was necessary for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the motor sold by the defendant to Goodwin was the motor stolen from Winters. Aside from the serial number testimony, the evidence is in conflict. Winters testified that his stolen motor had paint rubbed off of it. While both Winters and Robinson described the motor sold by the defendant to Goodwin as missing some paint, both the defendant and Goodwin testified to the contrary. Winters testified that his stolen motor had been purchased secondhand in 1974, while Goodwin described the motor sold to him as fairly new. We need not decide whether, if faced only with that evidence, we would conclude that the testimony concerning serial numbers counted so heavily with the jury as to constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights. For in this case, the likelihood that serious injustice resulted is almost a certainty in light of the jury's very specific inquiry as to the propriety of its considering the evidence of matching serial numbers. Cf. United States v. Readus, 367 F.2d 689, 691 (6th Cir. 1966). In the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.