Court Opinion

ID: 9724265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:50:25.568985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:58.644774
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, P. J.
(concurring). I write separately in an attempt to clarify what is apparently a frequently misunderstood rule regarding the prohibition of hearsay evidence.
Hearsay is that evidence offered in court of a statement made out of court to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court declarant. McCormick, Evidence (2d ed), § 246, p 584; People v Willie Solomon, 47 Mich App 208; 209 NW2d 257 (1973).
The testimony which the majority places within that definition offered by the rebuttal witness is as follows:
"Q. Now, Mr. Adams, you say that somebody approached you out in the hall?
”A. Yes.
*109"Q. Did Nate [the previous defense witness] say anything to you in regard to testifying in this case?
'A. Yes.
"Q. What did Nate tell you?
'A. He told me that Mr. Jones [defendant]paid him— or would pay him $20 to come down here and testify; and if I gave him $20, he would go back and he wouldn’t come on the stand — he would go back home and get high because they didn’t really care what happened.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Certainly, this evidence is of a statement made out of court by a presently nontestifying declarant. The emphasized portion of the witness’s statement referring to what defendant had told the declarant, if offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein, (i.e., whether, in fact, defendant paid the declarant to testify) would be hearsay. Even if offered in court by the declarant for that purpose, it would still be hearsay, but it would be admissible as an admission attributed to the defendant.
However, the second portion of the witness’s statement of what the out-of-court declarant stated to him, (i.e., the offer to leave for an additional sum) is not hearsay. Out-of-court declarations offered to show circumstantially the feelings, knowledge, or state of mind of the declarant are not subject to attack as hearsay since they are not offered to show the truth of the out-of-court statement, but only that such a statement was made. 6 Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed), § 1790, pp 237-238; 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence, §497, p 555. In many cases the materiality of the out-of-court assertion depends not on the truth of the assertion, but whether it was said at all. See Matthews v Aluminum Acceptance Corp, 1 Mich App 570; 137 NW2d 280 (1965); Koch v Production Steel Co, 344 Mich 161; 73 NW2d 323 (1955).
*110In Bridges v State, 247 Wis 350, 364; 19 NW2d 529, 535 (1945), the charge was taking indecent liberties with a minor. During trial, testimony from police officers established that on prior occasions the victim had been able to give a detailed description of the scene of the assault. Said the Supreme Court of Wisconsin:
"It is true that testimony as to such statements was hearsay and, as such, inadmissible if the purpose for which it was received had been to establish thereby that there were in fact the stated articles in the room, or that they were located as stated * * * . That, however, was not in this case the purpose for which the evidence as to those statements was admitted. * *. * those statements, although they were extrajudicial utterances, constituted at least circumstantial evidence that [the victim] then had such knowledge; and that such state of mind on her part was acquired by reason of her having been in that room and house prior to making the statements.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The same can be said of the rebuttal testimony offered in the case at bar. It has value for impeachment purposes since it shows the declarant to be somewhat unprincipled. In that same regard, it matters not whether, in fact, the declarant had been paid to testify by the defendant; the issue is whether the declarant made that statement in conjunction with his offer to leave without testifying for an additional sum.
Thus, while the testimony offered in court had all the earmárks of hearsay, it is nonetheless admissible to show the declarant’s state of mind, bias, or motive as a witness. Just as it is permissible, in my view, to allow evidence showing a declarant’s state of mind, or his ability to recount the details of a given event by reference to prior extrajudicial assertions or conduct, (Bridges v *111State, supra; People v Willie Solomon, supra)1 so, too, should it be permissible to show a declarant has so little regard for his civic duty to testify in a court of law that $20 will secure his absence.2
The only claim of error which I find legally tenable is the lack of a foundation for the admission of the rebuttal testimony. When a witness is sought to be impeached with prior contradictions, we impose the requirement of preliminary questions to that witness as a foundation. Scholnick v Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 187, 195; 86 NW2d 324, 328 (1957); In re Barth’s Estate, 298 Mich 388, 415; 299 NW 118, 128 (1941). The purpose of that requirement is to allow the witness the opportunity of denying or explaining away the supposed self-contradictory statement. See, generally, 3A Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev), § 1025, p 1020. In the context of prior self-contradiction, the foundation requirement has been strictly enforced. See Ebel v Saginaw Road Commissioners, 386 Mich 598, 608; 194 NW2d 365, 369 (1972). On principle, the same requirement should apply to impeachment by prior utterances of bias or corruption; however, in that context the rule is not uniformly applied. 3A Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourn Rev), § 953, p 801.
I think it is basic that a jury be informed of both *112sides of the assertion of bias or corruption on the part of a witness in order that a reasoned judgment of credibility be made. I find no reason in the record why the witness sought to be impeached could not have been recalled to the stand to explain, deny, or admit the statement attributed to him. That being the case, I concur in the remand for new trial.

 With regret, I must mention the separate opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan in People v Hallaway, 389 Mich 265, 271; 205 NW2d 451, 452 (1973), to the effect that prior consistent statements of one witness offered to rebut the innuendo of recent fabrication are hearsay when offered by another witness. I do not embrace that ruling wholeheartedly.

 The list of case authority in this opinion is not meant to be exhaustive. For those in the' profession who find comfort in the possession of a citation to a case "on all fours”, I hereby supply State v Wilson, 163 La 29; 111 So 484 (1927), where the corruption of a prosecution witness, shown by his offer of a bribe in a prior conversation with the defendant, was held admissible with little or no foundation being laid.