Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Testimony of John Hibbler

Text: During its case-in-chief, the State called John Hibbler as a witness. Mr. Hibbler is the owner of the car lot where Defendant Thomas purchased his pink box Chevy immediately following the robbery and shooting of James Day. On cross-examination, Defendant Thomas sought to elicit information regarding problems he and Angela Jackson were having in their marriage. The State objected and Defendant Thomas responded that the testimony was relevant to rebut the anticipated testimony of Angela Jackson. The trial court found that, should Mr. Hibbler recall Defendant Thomas mentioning marital difficulties with Ms. Jackson, that testimony would be hearsay. The following questioning then occurred: Q: Mr. Hibbler, as I was asking before, you had conversations with Mr. Thomas after the sale of this car. Is that right? A: Yes. I had conversations with him. Q: And the conversations with Mr. Thomas, he asked you if he could get a new title for that car because he was having problems with the title. Is that correct? MS. WEIRICH: Object, Your Honor, to hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Isn't that what we just discussed? A bench conference ensued, during which the trial court sustained its prior ruling that knowledge of marital difficulties between Defendant Thomas and Angela Jackson obtained during Mr. Hibbler's discussion with Thomas constituted hearsay. On appeal, Defendant Thomas complains that the trial court erroneously concluded that Mr. Hibbler's testimony about Thomas' marital problems with Ms. Jackson was hearsay. Thomas asserts that such statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but merely to show the subject of the conversation. The State responds that, if the testimony was offered to show the subject of the conversation, such statement was not relevant to any issue regarding the robbery and murder of James Day. Our Rules of Evidence provide that [h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or otherwise by law. Tenn. R. Evid. 802. Hearsay is defined as 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. Tenn. R. Evid. 801(c). If an out-of-court statement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, such as a statement offered for impeachment purposes, it is not hearsay. See State v. Howell, 868 S.W.2d 238, 252 (Tenn.1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1339, 127 L.Ed.2d 687 (1994). The determination of whether a statement is hearsay and whether it is admissible through an exception to the hearsay rule is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Stout, 46 S.W.3d 689, 697 (Tenn.2001). Accordingly, this Court will not reverse a trial court's ruling regarding the admission or exclusion of hearsay evidence absent a clear showing that it abused its discretion. See id. Testimony regarding possible bias of a witness is admissible pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 616 which provides that A party may offer evidence by cross-examination, extrinsic evidence, or both, that a witness is biased in favor of or prejudiced against a party or another witness. Tenn. R. Evid. 616. However, although extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove bias or prejudice, Defendant Thomas cites no cases from any jurisdiction, and we have found none, holding that witness bias may be proven by hearsay. If the testimony of Mr. Hibbler was offered to establish Ms. Jackson's prejudice against Defendant Thomas, it was hearsay. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit introduction of hearsay testimony regarding marital difficulties between Defendant Thomas and Angela Jackson.