State v. Dullard
668 N.W.2d 585 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of an assertion implied by the statement's text is inadmissible hearsay, just as if the assertion had been made explicitly.
Facts:
- Police received a report of a methamphetamine lab at a home where Brett Dullard lived with his mother.
- Dullard's mother consented to a search of the residence and a detached garage on the property.
- In the garage, police discovered numerous materials commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine, including precursor chemicals and three unopened boxes of Benadryl.
- Inside a desk in the garage, police found a small spiral notebook.
- The notebook contained a handwritten note addressed to "B—" which stated that the author had to go inside to calm their nerves and that a police car was outside watching the area.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Brett Dullard in district court with possession of a precursor with intent to use it to manufacture a controlled substance.
- At trial, the court admitted a handwritten note into evidence over Dullard's hearsay objection.
- A jury found Dullard guilty.
- Dullard, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding the note was inadmissible hearsay and the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted the State's application for further review.
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 handwritten note from an unidentified author, offered to prove the declarant's implied belief that the recipient was involved in criminal activity, constitute inadmissible hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Cady, Justice
Yes. A written statement containing an implied assertion is inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove the truth of that implied assertion. The State offered the note not to prove its literal contents (that a police car was outside), but to prove the writer's implied belief that the recipient, "B" (Dullard), was involved in the illegal drug activity in the garage and needed to be warned. This use requires accepting the truth of the implied assertion. The court rejects the approach suggested by the Federal Rules of Evidence advisory committee, which would treat such implied assertions as non-hearsay if the declarant did not intend to assert the implied matter. The court reasoned that while the risk of insincerity might be reduced in an unintentional assertion, other hearsay dangers—such as erroneous memory, faulty perception, and ambiguity—remain, making cross-examination necessary. Therefore, the note was improperly admitted hearsay and did not fall under any recognized exception.
Dissenting - Carter, Justice
No. While the dissent agrees with the majority's conclusion about the standard for reviewing a motion for acquittal, it disagrees with the outcome. The dissent argues that even if the improperly admitted note is considered as part of the evidence, the total evidence presented by the State was still insufficient to support a guilty verdict. In the dissent's view, the note was so lacking in probative value and the other evidence so inconclusive that the trial court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal. Therefore, the case should be reversed and dismissed, not remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Iowa's strict interpretation of the hearsay rule regarding implied assertions, diverging from the more liberal approach favored by the Federal Rules of Evidence advisory committee. The court establishes a clear precedent that the purpose for which a statement is offered is paramount; if it is to prove the truth of an implied belief, it falls under the hearsay definition. This ruling provides a bright-line rule for trial courts in Iowa, making it more difficult to introduce out-of-court statements for their inferential value without satisfying a formal hearsay exception. It prioritizes the right to cross-examination over the potential admission of evidence that may seem reliable due to the declarant's lack of intent to assert the implied fact.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Dullard