State v. Gonzales
245 So. 2d 372, 258 La. 103, 1971 La. LEXIS 4679 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement is not inadmissible hearsay if it is offered to prove that the statement was made (as a 'verbal act'), rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted within the statement.
Facts:
- New Orleans Policeman Tim Freel, working undercover, entered the Golden Slipper Club for a routine vice check.
- Ernest B. Gonzales, who was present in the club, motioned to Freel and called over a barmaid, Ruth Gray.
- Gray approached Freel, asked him to buy her a drink, and subsequently offered to engage in prostitution for a fee of $50 plus $10 for a room.
- Freel agreed and gave Gray three marked twenty-dollar bills.
- Gray placed the money in the cash register and then accompanied Freel to a nearby apartment owned by Gonzales.
- After Gray disrobed in the apartment, Officer Freel placed her under arrest.
- Other officers then returned to the Golden Slipper Club, arrested Gonzales, and found the three marked twenty-dollar bills in his possession.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Ernest B. Gonzales by Bill of Information with receiving support from the earnings of a prostitute.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The trial court judge sentenced Gonzales to a term of two years in the parish prison.
- Gonzales appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, alleging errors by the trial court, including the admission of alleged hearsay evidence.
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 an out-of-court statement offered to prove that the words were spoken, rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, constitute inadmissible hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, Justice
No, an out-of-court statement does not constitute inadmissible hearsay when offered to prove that the words were spoken rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The hearsay rule excludes only those out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of their contents. In this case, the State needed to prove that the barmaid, Ruth Gray, engaged in prostitution. Her words of solicitation to Officer Freel are pertinent to this proof. The statement was not offered to prove the truth of anything she said, but simply that the words of solicitation were uttered. This utterance, a 'verbal act,' gives context and legal significance to the otherwise ambiguous act of transferring money. Therefore, the officer's testimony about what Gray said is admissible non-hearsay evidence.
Concurring - McCaleb, Chief Justice
Concurred in the decree without providing a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the fundamental evidentiary distinction between hearsay and non-hearsay 'verbal acts.' The court's decision clarifies that statements that possess independent legal significance, such as words of solicitation, contract formation, or defamation, are admissible because their value lies in the fact that they were said, not in their truthfulness. This precedent is crucial for prosecutors in cases where the criminal conduct is primarily verbal, such as bribery, conspiracy, or prostitution. It solidifies the principle that the very words constituting a crime can be admitted into evidence without violating the rule against hearsay.
