Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

The commonwealth should not be permitted to evade

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: iladephia, brandished a gun, and ordered everyone to hit the floor. Proprietor of the bar identified this man as appellant but he only saw his face for a matter of seconds. Off-duty police officer also identified appellant as one of the two men but only saw his face for about three seconds. Detective Robert Aiken testified and said that he interrogated one of the robbers, Gary Moore. o Aiken said that based on what Moore said, Aiken determined that he should arrest Farris. Issue: Was Aiken's testimony about his actions upon speaking with Gary Moore inadmissible hearsay? Holding: Aiken's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Had the detective testified flat-out "Moore told me that one of the men involved was Farris" it would be clear beyond reasonable argument that the testimony would have been hearsay: it would have been an assertion by someone not in court (Moore), offered for its truth (that one of the men was Farris), and thus depending for its value upon the credibility of the out-of-court...
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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online