Opinion ID: 2521334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court Properly Admitted the Testimony of Art Fields.

Text: On remand, the superior court may again be faced with the question of whether to consider the testimony of Art Fields. Fields testified to the conversation between Mary Johnson and Dan Snyder in which they agreed that Snyder would live on Johnson's land and in exchange he would supply her with food. Glover and Douglass argue that the testimony should have been excluded both under Alaska Evidence Rule 602, which requires a lay witness to ha[ve] personal knowledge of the matter testified to, [38] and as inadmissible hearsay under Rules 801 and 802. Fields testified that he was present for the conversation between Johnson and Dan Snyder: THE COURT: Was Dan with you when... you talked with Mary and you said I'll give you 110 [dollars] for half of the lot? A: Yeah, andand she said I'm going to give my other half to him for Native grub and stuff as long as he keep[s] supporting me.... Q: And do you believe that was exactly what she said? A: Yeah. Rule 602 requires only minimal evidence of a witness's personal knowledge. [39] Given the wide discretion accorded trial courts in their admissibility decisions, [40] we hold that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in holding that this testimony was sufficient to establish Fields's personal knowledge under Rule 602. Fields recounted the conversation that he had with Dan Snyder, Sr. and Mary Johnson at several other points in his testimony. In addition to the passage reproduced above, the key testimony is: [T]his old lady, Mary Johnson ... came over and Iand Dan and I were there, Dan Snyder, and she said if you get me Native grub and take care of me for like caribou meat, reindeer meat, rabbits, anything, seal meat, I'll give you half of that property, and she sold half of it to me and gave the other to Dan Snyder. Glover and Douglass assert, without much elaboration, that this is hearsay and inadmissible. Under Alaska Rules of Evidence 801 and 802, evidence is inadmissible hearsay if it is a statement made out of court and introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. [41] Fields's recounting of the conversation between Mary Johnson and Dan Snyder, Sr. is not excluded by the hearsay rule because it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter. The testimony is not relevant to prove that Johnson or Dan Snyder, Sr. actually intended to follow through on their promises, nor whether they performed them. It is relevant to prove that they said they would perform and therefore entered an agreement. [42] Evidence of an oral agreement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Rather, such evidence is offered simply to show that the statement was made. [43] If the significance of an offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as to the truth of anything asserted, and the statement is not hearsay. [44] Fields's testimony was not hearsay and therefore properly admitted.