Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Implying that d was running gambling operation united

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ifference between verbal acts (where the saying of the words is a legal event) and this category where the words are a piece of circumstantial evidence from which we are going to make an inference about the listener's state of mind. KEY: Is that person's state of mind material?? State of mind of declarant = hearsay o Sometimes though is non hearsay, (Then-existing) State of mind of listener = admissible non-hearsay Hearsay Implied Assertions (1) (2) (3) (4) N: V said, "D did this." VERBAL ASSERTION N: V pointed/gestured NONVERBAL ASSERTION N: V hid from D NONASSERTIVE NONVERBAL CONDUCT N: V said, "Don't let D in here!" NONASSERTIVE VERBAL CONDUCT N : when D appeared, V said, "I didn't tell!" ASSERTION OFFERED FOR IMPLICATION, NON MATTER ASSERTED (5) Matter implied by utterance: The hearsay rule is not violated if an out-of-court utterance is offered to prove a matter implied by, but not asserted in, the utterance. Example Nonhearsay. In a prosecution for illegal bookmaking,...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online