Court Opinion

ID: 9701102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:05:15.848163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:19.367300
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Justice
(concurring).
Although I agree with the conclusion of the majority that the admission of the six hearsay statements was not prejudicial, I disagree with the majority’s suggestion that the statements were not clearly or obviously inadmissible hearsay.
The six statements were all out-of-court statements supposedly made by the victim. They were apparently offered to prove that Manthey had a motive to kill the victim because the statements suggest that the victim objected to Manthey’s gambling *508and would not let Manthey spend his separate assets gambling. If they were not offered for this purpose, they would have no relevance to the case. Thus, they were offered to prove the truth of what was implied in the victim’s statements, that the victim objected to Manthey’s gambling. As such, they plainly meet the definition of hearsay and are inadmissible unless they fall into one of the hearsay exceptions.
Although the application of the hearsay rule and its exceptions can sometimes be complex, it was not complex here. The state’s brief, written after taking the opportunity to reflect on the issue, does not present any sound reasons for admitting these statements. First, the state suggests that the statements were offered to prove the victim’s state of mind, relying on the hearsay exception in Minn. R. Evid. 803(3). But the state fails to demonstrate how the victim’s state of mind could have any relevance to Manthey’s motives unless there was evidence that connected Man-they to these statements. As the comments to Rule 803(3) explain:
The rule makes it clear that hearsay statements probative of the declarant’s state of mind or emotion are not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule. The more difficult evidentiary problems arise in the determination as to whether state of mind is relevant to the issues in the lawsuit.
Minn. R. Evid. 803(3) comm. cmt. — 1989. Because the victim’s state of mind could only be relevant to Manthey’s motives, and there is no evidence that these hearsay statements were communicated to Man-they, the statements are both irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay.
The state suggests that some of the statements might have been shown to be excited utterances, admissible under Minn. R. Evid. 803(2). But the state fails to show that the circumstances under which the statements were supposedly made would qualify them under that exception. The exception requires that the statement relate to “a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The testimony does not suggest that there was anything startling about the fact that Manthey had gone gambling. Thus, even if the state could have shown that the victim was excited when he made the statements, it could not have shown that the excitement was caused by a startling event or condition.