Kenyon v. State
986 P.2d 849, 1999 WL 557047, 1999 Wyo. LEXIS 133 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement is not hearsay and is admissible if it is offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the effect of the statement on the listener's state of mind, especially when the listener's intent is an element of the charged crime.
Facts:
- Robert Kenyon and his fiancee, Kelly Crossfield, were homeless and received assistance from James Sanchez, who allowed them to stay in a trailer on his property.
- Sanchez permitted Kenyon to use his truck on several occasions for errands and to look for work.
- On September 28, 1997, after being stopped for speeding, Sanchez learned that Kenyon's driver's license was suspended.
- Upset, Sanchez told Kenyon that he was no longer permitted to use the truck.
- Shortly thereafter, Crossfield learned of a family emergency involving her children in California.
- On September 30, 1997, Kenyon and Crossfield took Sanchez's truck and drove to California to retrieve the children.
- Sanchez reported to the police that his truck had been stolen.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wyoming charged Robert Kenyon with grand larceny.
- A jury trial was held in the state district court (trial court).
- During the trial, the court excluded testimony from Kenyon regarding a statement made to him by his fiancee about having permission to use the vehicle.
- The jury found Kenyon guilty of grand larceny.
- The trial court entered a judgment and sentence in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- Kenyon, as the Appellant, appealed the judgment to the Wyoming Supreme 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 a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding a defendant's testimony about an out-of-court statement when that statement is offered not for its truth, but to prove its effect on the defendant's mental state and negate the criminal intent required for a larceny conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Macy, Justice
Yes, a trial court abuses its discretion by excluding such testimony. An out-of-court statement offered to show its effect on the hearer's state of mind is not hearsay and is admissible. Kenyon sought to introduce Crossfield's statement that Sanchez had given them permission to use the truck, not to prove that Sanchez actually gave permission, but to show that Kenyon believed he had permission. This testimony was directly relevant to his defense that he lacked the specific intent to deprive Sanchez of his property, which is a required element of larceny. Because the defendant's intent was the central, contested issue at trial, excluding this crucial evidence affected his substantial rights and was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of his conviction.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental evidentiary distinction between hearsay and non-hearsay uses of out-of-court statements, particularly the 'effect on the listener' doctrine. The decision underscores that when a defendant's state of mind (mens rea) is a critical element of the offense, evidence explaining that state of mind must be admitted to ensure a fair trial. By holding that the exclusion of such evidence was reversible error, the court protects a defendant's ability to present a complete defense. This precedent serves as a clear guide for trial courts to admit statements that are crucial for a jury to properly evaluate a defendant's intent and subsequent conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Kenyon v. State