Commonwealth v. Tran
460 Mass. 535 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements contained within an authenticated business record, such as names on an airline manifest, are not inadmissible hearsay if offered for the non-hearsay purpose of showing the statement was made (i.e., that someone used those names), rather than for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., that the defendants were definitively those passengers). Furthermore, business records created for the administration of an entity's affairs are non-testimonial and their admission does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Facts:
- In the early morning of January 12, 1991, Siny Van Tran (Tran), Nam The Tham (Tham), and a third man, Hung Tien Pham, entered an illegal gambling parlor in Boston's Chinatown armed with guns.
- The three men ordered the occupants of the parlor not to move and to kneel on the floor.
- Tham was seen shooting one victim, and Hung Tien Pham was seen shooting another.
- Ultimately, five men were shot and killed execution-style. A sixth man, Pak Wing Lee, was shot in the head but survived.
- After the shootings, Tran, Tham, and Hung Tien Pham fled the scene.
- On January 30, 1991, less than three weeks after the murders, three airline tickets with consecutive identification numbers were purchased for a flight to Hong Kong.
- The tickets were issued under the names Wah Tran (an alias for Siny Van Tran), Nam The Tham, and Hung Tien Pham.
Procedural Posture:
- After the 1991 shootings, arrest warrants were issued for Siny Van Tran and Nam The Tham.
- Tran was arrested in China in 1999 and Tham was arrested there in 2000.
- Both defendants were extradited from Hong Kong to the United States in December 2001.
- Prior to trial, Tran filed a motion to sever his trial from Tham's, which the trial court judge denied.
- The defendants were tried jointly in the Massachusetts Superior Court (the court of first instance).
- A jury convicted both defendants on five charges of murder in the first degree, along with other related charges.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions directly to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, arguing multiple errors by the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of airline records containing defendants' names, offered with a limiting instruction that they serve only as circumstantial evidence that someone used those names to travel, violate the rule against hearsay or the Confrontation Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Cordy, J.
No, the admission of the airline records under these circumstances does not violate the rule against hearsay or the Confrontation Clause. The records were properly authenticated through circumstantial evidence, including their distinctive internal codes and Tran's own admission of traveling to Hong Kong. Crucially, the trial judge provided a limiting instruction, directing the jury to consider the documents not as direct proof that the defendants were the passengers, but only for the non-hearsay purpose of showing that someone used their names to purchase tickets for the flight. Because the names were offered only to show the statements were 'made,' and not for the 'truth of the matter asserted,' they are not hearsay. Furthermore, because these airline records were created for the administration of the airline's affairs and not for the purpose of proving a fact at trial, they are non-testimonial, and their admission does not violate the defendants' rights under the Confrontation Clause.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the business records exception to evidence containing 'totem pole' or embedded hearsay from a source with no business duty to be truthful. The court's holding emphasizes that the admissibility of such evidence can hinge on the purpose for which it is offered. By admitting the airline records for the non-hearsay purpose of showing the defendants' names were used, coupled with a strong limiting instruction, the decision provides a template for prosecutors to introduce powerful circumstantial evidence of flight without needing to definitively prove the identity of the person who provided the information. This reinforces the principle that a limiting instruction can cure potential prejudice and allows for the admission of evidence that would otherwise be excluded as hearsay.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Tran