Court Opinion

ID: 9528348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:12.468097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:47.972037
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
I. I think that on two bases the trial court properly admitted Palmer’s hearsay statement set out in division II of the majority opinion. First, the picture I get from the record is that Menke, Palmer, and Tim-ko were jointly engaged in a conversation and transaction. We have here a classic illustration of an adoptive admission. McCormick, Evidence, § 269 at 649 et seq. (2d ed.). Second, the trial court could find from the other evidence that Palmer acted for Menke in the transaction, rendering Palmer’s statements in the course of the transaction admissible against Menke as admissions by agent. McCormick, supra, § 267 at 639.
II. I also think a jury question existed on guilt, with or without the Palmer statement in the record.
I would affirm.
MOORE, C. J., and LeGRAND and REES, JJ., join this dissent.