Case BriefEvidence Unit 10: statements not hearsayStensvaag, 2/14/15Identity of CaseBridges v. State, 19 N.W.2d 529 (1945)Page 93 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryA 7 year old was molested, she was not put on the stand for obvious reasons. The evidence against the defendant depended in part on whether he was the resident of the house that the victim was molested in. She gave a statement to the police describing a few vague aspects of the house. These statements were admitted through the police officer at trial, after conviction this was one of the many grounds for appeal by the defendant. Statement of the IssueShould the victim’s statements to the police officers have been admitted? HoldingGiven that they were admitted to show circumstantial knowledge and were not specific enough to prejudice the jury into taking them for the truth, the statements were admissible. ReasoningIt’s a brick, it’s not the whole house. There are two possible uses for this evidence: for truth (that the described items were in the house) or for showing of circumstantial knowledge (the victim was in the house alleged to be the defendants). The second option is admissible…When there are two possible uses for evidence and one is allowed and one is not, the evidence can come in with limiting instructions if it is not likely to prejudice the jury. This includes, among other thing, an evaluation of how specific the information is and what type of information it is.
View Full Document
Unlocking...