State v. Carlson
808 P.2d 1002 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether a party intended to adopt another's statement, making it an admissible adoptive admission, is a preliminary question of fact for the judge under OEC 104(1) and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Separately, an accusatory statement may be admissible as an excited utterance if it is a spontaneous reaction to a startling event, such as hearing a falsehood.
Facts:
- Officer Lewis was dispatched to an apartment for a reported domestic dispute between defendant Carlson and his wife, Lisa.
- Lisa appeared distraught and gave Lewis consent to search the apartment for methamphetamine.
- Lewis found traces of methamphetamine on a mirror in the master bedroom shared by Carlson and Lisa.
- Approximately 15-20 minutes later, Lewis encountered Carlson in the apartment complex parking lot and noticed what appeared to be needle marks on his arms.
- When Lewis questioned him, Carlson claimed the marks were from working on a car.
- Lisa, who was present, heard Carlson's explanation and yelled, "You liar, you got them from shooting up in the bedroom with all your stupid friends."
- In response to Lisa's accusation, Carlson "hung his head and shook his head back and forth."
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Oregon indicted defendant Carlson in Lane County Circuit Court (trial court) for unlawful possession of a controlled substance and endangering the welfare of a minor.
- Before trial, Carlson filed a motion to suppress his statements about the marks on his arms, which the trial court denied, finding the interrogation was noncustodial.
- At trial, Carlson objected to the officer's testimony regarding his wife's statement and his reaction as inadmissible hearsay; the trial court overruled the objection.
- A jury convicted Carlson on both counts.
- Carlson (appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, which affirmed the trial court's judgment without a written opinion.
- The Supreme Court of Oregon granted review of the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an out-of-court accusatory statement made by a defendant's wife, along with the defendant's ambiguous nonverbal reaction, admissible in a criminal trial under an exception to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Unis, J.
Yes, the wife's statement is admissible as an excited utterance, although not as an adoptive admission. For evidence to be an adoptive admission under OEC 801(4)(b)(B), the trial judge must decide as a preliminary question of fact under OEC 104(1) whether the proponent has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the party intended to adopt the statement. Here, Carlson's ambiguous nonverbal reaction (hanging and shaking his head) was insufficient to meet this standard, as it could have meant denial, confusion, or resignation. However, Lisa's statement itself is admissible under the excited utterance exception (OEC 803(2)). The startling event was hearing Carlson's lie to the officer. Lisa's statement was a spontaneous, excited reaction made under the stress of that event, and it directly related to it. Therefore, the statement was properly admitted.
Concurring - Graber, J.
Yes, the statement was admissible. I agree with the majority's conclusion and most of its reasoning, but I disagree with one of its policy justifications. The majority's rationale that the judge, rather than the jury, must decide the preliminary fact of adoption to prevent the jury from being tainted by potentially inadmissible hearsay shows an unnecessary distrust of juries. Courts routinely trust juries to follow limiting instructions regarding evidence, and there is no reason to believe they are incapable of doing so in the context of conditionally relevant hearsay. The other legal reasons provided by the majority are sufficient to support the holding without resorting to this policy argument.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the procedural requirements for admitting evidence under the adoptive admission exception to the hearsay rule in Oregon. By categorizing the question of intent to adopt as a preliminary question of fact for the judge under OEC 104(1), the court strengthens the trial judge's role as a gatekeeper of evidence. This holding prevents juries from being exposed to potentially prejudicial hearsay before a judicial determination of admissibility is made by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision also provides a useful example of the excited utterance exception, demonstrating that a startling event need not be a dramatic accident or crime but can be something as simple as hearing a provocative falsehood.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Carlson