Court Opinion

ID: 9644922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:08:45.848525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:20.165539
License: Public Domain

Shangraw, J.,
dissenting. I would reverse. This conclusion is based upon the testimony of Floyd Rising, Superintendent of Schools of Windham South District, which was objected to by the plaintiff as hearsay evidence.
Mr. Rising testified about a telephone conversation had between his secretary and the plaintiff, Mr. Jaqueth. This is quoted in the majority opinion and in part reads: “The secretary said, ‘That’s that Mr. Jaquith. When I asked ‘who is calling, please,’ he said, ‘none of your God damned business’ and I hung up. I believe he called back.”
This brings into play the nature of the test required by the hearsay rule. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Vol. 5, §1362 at page 3 states:
“The fundamental test, shown by experience to be invaluable, is the test of Cross-examination. The rule, to be sure, calls for two elements, Cross-examination proper, and Confrontation; but the former is the essential and indispensable feature, the latter is only subordinate and dispensable (post section 1395) . . . The theory of the Hearsay rule is that many possible deficiencies, suppressions, sources of error, and untrustworthiness, which lie underneath the bare untested assertion of a witness, may be best brought to light and exposed by the test of Cross-examination.”
The secretary was not called as a witness. While there are exceptions to the general hearsay rule, the circumstances present in this case do not afford such an exception. I believe the requisite spontaneity is lacking. In my opinion the testimony of Mr. Rising on the point in issue was clearly hearsay, and its admission error.
*389Moreover, the substance of the telephone conversation, and more particularly the reference to the Diety, a violation of the biblical admonition, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” is so patently offensive as to leave little doubt of its prejudicial effect. The admission of this conversation in evidence very likely poisoned the minds of the jury. It was not relevant to any issue in the case, or proof of any pertinent fact. It is my judgment, that by its presence in the case, the adverse effect upon the jury was so compelling as to constitute prejudicial error.