Opinion ID: 3133191
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Petition for hearing

Text: Sanders filed a petition for hearing with this court, and we granted it, in part, on “whether exclusion of Carmela Bacod’s hearsay statement to the investigating detective was reversible error.” Sanders argues that Bacod’s statement was admissible under the Rules of Evidence — using both Rule 803(3) (the state of mind hearsay exception) and Rule 804(b)(5) (the unavailable declarant residual hearsay exception) — to show Richards’s intent and conduct in going to Sanders’s apartment on New Year’s Eve. Sanders also argues, based on his constitutional right to present a defense, that Bacod’s statement was admissible to show both Richards’s and Moore’s intent and conduct in going to Sanders’s apartment. Sanders argues that the failure to admit the statement under these theories was error and that the error was not harmless.