Court Opinion

ID: 9595467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:40:47.419339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:47.477795
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
dissenting:
I do not believe the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to allow the investigating officer to repeat from his police report what he had been told by the married couple and as a consequence I respectfully dissent.
Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence except as provided in NRS Chapter 51, NRS Title 14 and the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. In an apparent effort to avoid a conflict between the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution, and the hearsay rule, the exceptions set forth in NRS 51.075 to NRS 51.305, and NRS 51.315 to NRS 51.355 are stated in terms of exemption from the general mandate of the hearsay rule rather than in terms of admissibility. Cf. Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965).
Factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law and admissible against the *246state pursuant to NRS 51.1551 refers to facts within the personal knowledge of the reporting officer and not to hearsay statements or conclusions or opinions of others contained in official reports. See Orth v. Bauer, 429 P.2d 279 (Colo. 1967).
Police reports are not admissible for the sole purpose of establishing the truth of the matter asserted by a third party informant. The recital of a statement of others in a police report is hearsay within hearsay or “double hearsay,” NRS 51.365,2 and is inadmissible upon proper objection unless it comes within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule independent of the business or public record exception, NRS 51.1353 and NRS 51.155. Cf. In re Estate of Paulos, 229 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1975); Westinghouse El. Corp. v. Dolly Madison L. & F. Corp., 326 N.E.2d 651 (Ohio 1975).
I believe the statements made by the married couple and recorded by the detective during his investigation are inadmissible under NRS 51.135 or NRS 51.155, and the trial court committed no error in excluding them. Compare United States v. Smith, 521 F.2d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1975), where it was held that a police report and broadcast transcript were admissible on the defendant’s behalf as business records to impeach the credibility of the complaining witness who was the declarant. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(6).
I further believe that the excluded statements are inadmissible within NRS 51.075, which is a recognized exception of the hearsay rule independent of the business or public record exception.
*247Our statute was designed to permit the admission of hearsay evidence which imparts a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness not otherwise admissible under any other exception. There can be no rigid rule of admissibility for in every case “[t]he test is one of reliábility.” United States v. Hickey, 360 F.2d 127, 143 (7th Cir. 1966).
The trial judge must be left some discretion to decide whether the source of the information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness or whether the nature of the recorded statement and the special circumstances under which it was made offer assurances of accuracy not likely to be enhanced by calling the declarant- as a witness. United States v. Bohle, 445 F.2d 54 (7th Cir. 1971).
Here the trial judge, without specificity, indicated that he did not believe the material in the investigator’s report to be trust-, worthy or reliable. The statements sought to be admitted for the truth of the matter reported contained not only double hearsay statements made by the married couple to the investigator about what they observed but triple hearsay statements made by the two unkempt persons to the couple. NRS 51.365. There is no foundation in the record to indicate that the reporting couple were able to accurately perceive, hear or remember what they related to the investigator. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

 NRS 51.155: “Records, reports, statements or data compilations, in any form, of public officials or agencies are not inadmissible under the hearsay rule if they set forth:
“1. The activities of the official or agency;
“2. Matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law; or
“3. In civil cases and against the state in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or the method or circumstances of the investigation indicate lack of trustworthiness.”

 NRS 51.365: “Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms to an exception to the hearsay rule provided in this chapter.”

 NRS 51.135: “A memorandum, report, record or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, all in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, is not inadmissible under the hearsay rule unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.”