United States v. Long

857 F.2d 436 (8th Cir. 1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D called his fiancée, Mary Statten, as a witness. She mentioned a contract D signed prior to coming to Minnesota, which, according to her, led her and D to believe he was participating in a legitimate business venture. P did not object to her mentioning the contract. On cross-examination, P questioned her quite extensively about the contract. She replied that the contract involved Thermo-Dynamics and that Jackson had hired D for six months for $40,000 as a promoter. On re-direct examination, Statten identified an exhibit as the contract of employment. P and Jackson objected to the exhibit as hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection. D’s counsel argued that the exhibit was not being offered for its truth but rather to show D's state of mind, or as a response to P's cross-examination which implied that the contract was a recent fabrication. The trial court questioned whether the contract had been authenticated. The court excluded the contract. D was convicted and appealed.