Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

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: y of nonhearsay is sometimes called effect on the listener where again, we don't care about the truth of the words...we just care about the effect of those words on the listener. Note 1 (pg. 105): These are different than McClure!! Dealing with notice or knowledge rather than effect on state of mind of listener. In these cases the truth of the statements are of legal interest, whereas in these other two cases it isn't. Whether the sponge count actually didn't come out right is kind of important...but most important is the fact that the statement had no effect on McClure's actions right? Smedra v. Stanek Testimony that motor vehicle inspector told defendants prior to accident that car's tires were unsafe friend of defendant, testifying that they were having the car inspected and that the mechanic said to the defendant that the tires were too bad to pass inspection and that the defendant heard it....let this in but give a limiting instruction: "Statement by mechanic is to be considered only on the issue of defendant's notice..not for the truth." Motive: Bell v. State, the fact that defendant was told that the victim had $1100 showed a reason for why the defendant might have mugged him. Notice the d...
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