Court Opinion

ID: 9606912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:54:04.701527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.373645
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (dissenting). The preliminary hearing testimony complained of, made by Mr. Hargrove alleges, in essence, (1) that various items of household furniture were removed from his home without authority during a period of his absence, and (2) that the same items were discovered and subsequently identified by him in the defendant’s home. The prosecution established these two facts by independent sources. In my opinion, the trial testimony of detective Brew-ton establishes that the furniture found in the defendant’s home was identified by Mr. Hargrove as his. Brewton testified that he, Mr. Hargrove, and a second Roswell City Police Officer went to the defendant’s home to determine whether the missing furniture could be located there. The defendant permitted their entry, and Mr. Hargrove identified the furniture. I do not agree that this testimony was hearsay. In similar circumstances, the Nevada Supreme Court has quoted approvingly from 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 555, p. 467, as follows: “ ‘An objection that a statement is hearsay is not available as to a statement made in the presence of the party against whom the statement is offered in evidence and in a conversation in which he took part.’ ” Beasley v. State, 81 Nev. 431, 404 P.2d 911 (1965). And our Rule of Evidence, Section 20-4-801(d) provides: “a statement is not hearsay if — • * * * (2) The statement is offered against a party and is * * * (B) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth * * The defendant did not challenge Mr. Hargrove’s statement that the furniture was his. On the question of whether the furniture belonged to Mr. Hargrove and was taken from his home without authorization, I believe the testimony adduced at trial from Mr. Hargrove’s sister-in-law serves as an independent source. On direct examination she testified as follows: “Q. And, to your knowledge, did Jake Hargrove come up missing some furniture ? “A. Yes. sir. “Q. You knew about this? “A. Yes, sir.” This testimony came in without objection, and nothing elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination served to undermine it. I would therefore hold that the preliminary hearing testimony read at trial was merely cumulative and that owing to the absence of proof of any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of its admission, what error there may have been in the trial court’s failure to exact documentation from the prosecution on its claim that Mr. Hargrove was unavailable to repeat his testimony at the trial should be viewed as harmless. “Cumulative evidence has repeatedly been defined to be additional evidence of the same kind to the same point.” State v. Funderburke, 251 S.C. 536, 164 S.E.2d 309 (1968). “ * * * [Wjhether cumulative evidence will be permitted is in the area of the court’s discretion and the ruling thereon will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is made to appear that such discretion was abused.” State v. Steinkraus, 76 N.M. 617, 417 P.2d 431 (1966). For the reasons stated, I do, therefore, respectfully register my dissent.