Opinion ID: 537466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Defendant Perkins' Co-conspirator Hearsay Objection.

Text: 90 Defendant Perkins contends that the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of Adar Hassan and Albert Meredith, Jr. 91 Defendant did not object to the testimony by Hassan that he spoke to Perkins at her home on the day of the fire and Perkins had told him she wanted the fire set in the kitchen. Thus, we are not obligated to address this issue. In all events, the testimony appears admissible as an admission under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). 92 Defendant did object to the testimony of Albert Meredith, Jr. regarding Perkins' agreement to proceed with plans to set a fire at her home. 93 Meredith, Jr. testified that he had spoken with defendant Perkins and defendant Ware about the possibility of setting a fire at Perkins' residence. He reviewed Perkins' insurance policy and inspected her home to select a location for the fire. He testified that Perkins took some time to think about it but eventually he heard from defendant Ware that Perkins was ready to have a fire. 94 Defendant objected to Meredith, Jr. testifying as to what defendant Ware told him Perkins said as the testimony was hearsay. The court stated the testimony was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) as a statement of a co-conspirator. 95 On appeal, defendant Perkins contends the trial court failed to make the preliminary determination required for the admission of a co-conspirator's statement; namely, that a conspiracy existed, and that the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Fed.R. of Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) provides: 96 (d) A statement is not hearsay if-- 97