Opinion ID: 698181
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of evidence of prior act

Text: 16 Miller claims that [e]vidence of the actual misappropriation by Mr. Miller from Mary Erickson's account rested solely on hearsay, but Mrs. Erickson herself testified in the videotaped deposition. Miller also specifically challenges the admission of letters between Mrs. Erickson's accountant and attorney and Miller. All of the letters were properly admitted. Some of the letters were admissible as statements by a party-opponent, others as statements in which a party-opponent has manifested an adoption of belief in its truth under Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B). Still other letters from Erickson's accountant and attorney pressuring Miller for repayment were relevant as to Miller's state of mind and were not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Thus they were not hearsay.