Tweet
It does not matter that the situation here is a criminal conviction. In the US we use "common law" and previous cases are used to establish precedent.
Anything you text can be used against you.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Text Messages “Not Inadmissible Hearsay”
snip
Appellant’s Answering Brief, Chavez v. State, 2010 WL 1019033.
The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution. It found that the messages
in this case were not offered to prove the truth of the matter they asserted -- that the prospective buyers wanted to purchase drugs from Chavez. Rather, they were offered as circumstantial evidence that Chavez had drugs for sale. . . . The fact that multiple persons sent messages asking for drugs further supported an inference that those persons believed that Chavez had drugs for sale.
We agree with the courts outside this jurisdiction that have followed this or similar reasoning in rejecting hearsay objections to out-of-court statements from unidentified persons asking to buy drugs from a defendant. See, e.g., U.S. v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 565 F.3d 312 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 2009) (holding that requests to purchase heroin were not hearsay because the government did not offer them for their truth, nor did they assert anything); U.S. v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit 1990) (holding that unidentified caller's question, “Have the apples arrived there?’ was properly admitted as non-hearsay because it was not an assertion); U.S. v. Lewis, 902 F.2d 1176 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5<sup>th</sup> Circuit 1990). (holding that unidentified caller's question, `Did you get the stuff?’ was not an assertion and therefore was not hearsay).
State v. Chavez, supra. The court therefore upheld Chavez’s conviction and sentence. State v. Chavez, supra.
Anything you text can be used against you.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Text Messages “Not Inadmissible Hearsay”
snip
Appellant’s Answering Brief, Chavez v. State, 2010 WL 1019033.
The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the prosecution. It found that the messages
in this case were not offered to prove the truth of the matter they asserted -- that the prospective buyers wanted to purchase drugs from Chavez. Rather, they were offered as circumstantial evidence that Chavez had drugs for sale. . . . The fact that multiple persons sent messages asking for drugs further supported an inference that those persons believed that Chavez had drugs for sale.
We agree with the courts outside this jurisdiction that have followed this or similar reasoning in rejecting hearsay objections to out-of-court statements from unidentified persons asking to buy drugs from a defendant. See, e.g., U.S. v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 565 F.3d 312 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit 2009) (holding that requests to purchase heroin were not hearsay because the government did not offer them for their truth, nor did they assert anything); U.S. v. Oguns, 921 F.2d 442 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit 1990) (holding that unidentified caller's question, “Have the apples arrived there?’ was properly admitted as non-hearsay because it was not an assertion); U.S. v. Lewis, 902 F.2d 1176 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5<sup>th</sup> Circuit 1990). (holding that unidentified caller's question, `Did you get the stuff?’ was not an assertion and therefore was not hearsay).
State v. Chavez, supra. The court therefore upheld Chavez’s conviction and sentence. State v. Chavez, supra.