Case BriefEvidence Unit 10: words as nonhearsay, silenceStensvaag, 2/14/15Identity of CaseSubramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, (English case, 1956)Page 90 of the casebook.Summary of Facts/Procedural HistorySubramaniam is arrested for unauthorized possession of firearms in Malaya (which is being occupied by GB and is basically a war zone full of various terrorist groups). Raises coercion as a defense, claiming he was kidnapped by terrorists who threatened to kill him if he didn’t comply. Defendant is prevented from getting the statements onto the record. Reversed on appeal and remanded for new trial. Statement of the IssueAre threatening statements made to the defendant inadmissible hearsay? (i.e., I’m going to kill you if youdon’t…)HoldingSuch statements are admissible, because they are not offered for the truth that the terrorists would actually kill Subramaniam, but his belief that they would kill him. ReasoningSee holding. A) “I’m going to kill you if you don’t… + M) Listener’s belief that this was true Defendant believed that they were going to kill him. Don’t have to assume the truth of A to get to the conclusion.
View Full Document
Unlocking...