People v. Rosson
1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 2505, 20 Cal. Rptr. 833, 202 Cal. App. 2d 480 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements are admissible as non-hearsay original evidence when they are offered not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to demonstrate that the words were spoken, which is relevant to a material issue such as a party's intent, good faith, or the reasonableness of their conduct.
Facts:
- On August 13, 1957, Rosson rented a 1957 Oldsmobile from Hertz Corporation for a one-month period, signing an agreement stating he was the only authorized driver.
- Two days after renting the car, Rosson loaned it to an associate, Lester Cohen.
- On August 26, 1957, Rosson instructed Cohen to deliver the car to another business associate, Helen Eldridge, so she could return it to Hertz.
- The car was due back to Hertz on September 13, 1957, but it was not returned.
- From August 30 to October 1, 1957, Rosson was in custody in Las Vegas on an unrelated matter. During this time, he called Eldridge, who incorrectly informed him that Cohen had returned the car.
- After his release, Rosson learned the car had not been returned and contacted the police.
- On October 8, 1957, police recovered the car from a parking lot after being contacted by Eldridge and then Cohen, and returned it to Hertz.
- Hertz never received any payment for the rental of the car.
Procedural Posture:
- The People of California charged appellant Rosson in two separate informations with two counts of grand theft.
- The two informations were consolidated for trial in a California superior court (trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict finding Rosson guilty on both counts of grand theft.
- The trial court denied Rosson's motion for a new trial.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Rosson to state prison.
- Rosson (appellant) appealed from the final judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial to the California District Court of Appeal.
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 commit prejudicial error by excluding a defense witness's testimony about out-of-court conversations on hearsay grounds, when that testimony is offered not to prove the truth of the conversations but to show the defendant's lack of felonious intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Herndon, J.
Yes. A trial court commits prejudicial error by excluding such testimony. The excluded testimony of Helen Eldridge regarding her conversations with Cohen and the police was not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in those conversations, but rather as original evidence that the conversations occurred. This evidence was directly relevant to Rosson's intent, as it would tend to show his continuous efforts, through Eldridge as his agent, to have the car returned to its owner. Evidence of these efforts would counter the prosecution's theory that Rosson formed the intent to permanently deprive Hertz of its property (embezzlement). The court explained that under a well-established exception to the hearsay rule, such statements are admissible to show the speaker's or listener's state of mind or to explain their subsequent conduct. Because the evidence of Rosson's guilt was a close question, the erroneous exclusion of this highly relevant, admissible testimony was prejudicial and requires reversal of the conviction on that count.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the 'non-truth' or 'verbal acts' exception to the hearsay rule. The decision reinforces that the purpose for which an out-of-court statement is offered is paramount in determining its admissibility. It establishes that a defendant in a theft case can introduce testimony about their own or their agent's out-of-court statements to demonstrate a lack of criminal intent, so long as the statements are offered merely to prove they were made. This precedent is crucial for defending against specific intent crimes, as it allows the introduction of evidence that directly illuminates the defendant's state of mind and efforts to comply with the law, which might otherwise be improperly excluded as hearsay.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Rosson