Opinion ID: 2644969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chad Green’s Out-of-Court Statements

Text: For his second point on appeal, Billy asserts that the circuit court erred when it admitted Chad’s out-of-court statements and violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause to confront his accuser. Billy asserts that Samons’s testimony regarding Chad’s prior statements to Samons were used to prove that they were in fact false and to prove that Chad was involved in the murder of the Elliotts. Billy contends that the circuit court erred because Samons’s testimony concerning Chad’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause and was impermissible testimony. The State agrees that the statement was testimonial in nature but is not subject to the Confrontation Clause because the statement was admitted only to show police action. At issue is Sheriff Ron Samons’s testimony regarding his investigation of the Elliott deaths. The following colloquy occurred: PROSECUTOR: On August 8th, some nine days after the homicides, did you have the occasion to speak with Chad? SHERIFF SAMONS: I did. PROSECUTOR: And again, this is taking the steps in the investigation on this that you talked to him? SHERIFF SAMONS: Yes. PROSECUTOR: Was he a suspect . . . SHERIFF SAMONS: No. PROSECUTOR: . . . at that time? 21 Cite as 2013 Ark. 497 SHERIFF SAMONS: No. PROSECUTOR: Okay. Can you tell us did he indicate to you whether he knew the Elliotts? SHERIFF SAMONS: Yes. PROSECUTOR: What did he say? SHERIFF SAMONS: He said he - he said, I know Allen Elliott - who is Carl Allen Elliott. He said, I know Allen Elliott, but not real well. I’ve known him for a pretty good while. PROSECUTOR: Did he indicate to you when was the last time he had seen - and again ... DEFENSE COUNSEL: Can we approach? The circuit court overruled Billy’s objection to testimony about Chad’s statement and admonished the jury: THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentleman of the jury I am going to give you a limiting jury instruction. And that is that the testimony about Charles Wayne Green with regards to the sheriff that he is testifying to is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted in this trial but is simply offered as to the furtherance of his investigation and how it proceeded. The circuit court allowed Samons to continue testifying about his investigation. Samons went on to testify about Chad’s statements regarding his whereabouts on July 30, 1998, and that Chad may have been stranded at his grandparents’ house on Allen Trail without transportation. Samons then testified regarding his meeting with Bonnie Hensley Cantrell, Chad’s former girlfriend. In order for hearsay statements to be admissible against a defendant at a criminal trial, 22 Cite as 2013 Ark. 497 two separate requirements must be met. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 60 (2004). First, an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay must be demonstrated. Second, the admission of the hearsay cannot violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Chambers v. State, 2012 Ark. 407, at 4, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (internal citations omitted). Thus, for the Confrontation Clause to be invoked, the statement must be testimonial in nature, and admitted for its truth. Id. Here, the testimony was not admitted for its truth but was admitted to explain a series of police actions in the police investigation. Further, the jury was instructed to consider the statements only for that purpose. We are unpersuaded by Billy’s argument, and we affirm the circuit court on its ruling regarding Chad’s out-of-court statements.