Opinion ID: 166142
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of the phone conversations

Text: Defendant may be correct that the conversations between Trooper Kummer and the Caller were not in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy. But we need not resolve that issue, because Defendant has not pointed to any hearsay in those conversations. We may affirm the district court’s admission of evidence on any legally correct ground. United States v. Jackson, 88 F.3d 845, 847 (10th Cir. 1996). -4- “‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). “A ‘statement’ is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a). The rule does not define “assertion,” but “[t]he key to the definition is that nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(a) cmt. (a). It is not apparent to us that any portion of the conversations between Kummer and the Caller was “offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The only evidence about the conversations mentioned in Defendant’s brief on appeal is Kummer’s testimony that the Caller asked where “the girl” and “Geronimo” were. Aplt. Br. at 5. According to Defendant, “[t]he mere mention of ‘Geronimo’ by name was devastating to the defense in this case because it suggested that he had a greater role than that which was admitted.” Id. at 21. But the Caller’s asking the whereabouts of Geronimo and the girl is hardly an assertion, much less an assertion whose truth the prosecution was trying to prove. In a similar context we have said that a question could not “reasonably be construed to be an intended assertion, either express or implied. . . . The mere fact . . . that the declarant conveyed a message with her question does not make the question hearsay.” Jackson, 88 F.3d at 848. Here, the -5- Caller’s question about Geronimo’s whereabouts could not reasonably be viewed as intended to assert that Geronimo was a coconspirator, even though the question was undoubtedly probative of that fact. Perhaps some true hearsay appears within the portions of the conversations admitted into evidence at trial. But Defendant has not directed our attention to any; and we suspect that if there was any, it had no impact on the trial. Accordingly, we reject this claim of error.