United States v. Jose Oscar Cantu
876 F.2d 1134 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Out-of-court statements offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show their effect on the listener's state of mind, are not hearsay and are admissible to support a defense like entrapment.
Facts:
- Government informants Raul Santander and Juan Manuel Renteria met Jose Oscar Cantu in Reynosa, Mexico.
- Following the meeting, Renteria contacted DEA agent Mario Alvarez, and they arranged a controlled drug sale with Cantu.
- On December 14, 1987, at a stereo store in McAllen, Texas, Cantu sold a 1.54-gram heroin sample to undercover DEA agents for $800.
- A few days later, Renteria and Cantu traveled to Monterrey, Mexico, to meet a supplier known as 'the Commander' to discuss larger future transactions involving heroin and cocaine.
- On December 22, 1987, Cantu informed Renteria that more heroin was available.
- Later that day at the stereo shop, Cantu produced a packet containing 164.9 grams of heroin for undercover agents, at which point he was arrested.
- Cantu sought to testify that the informant, Santander, had repeatedly and persistently pressured him to secure drug customers, including appealing for help because Santander needed money for Christmas.
Procedural Posture:
- The government filed a motion in limine in the federal trial court to prohibit the defendant, Jose Oscar Cantu, from testifying about statements made by a non-testifying government informant, Raul Santander.
- The trial court granted the government's motion, ruling that the proposed testimony was inadmissible hearsay.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Cantu on multiple charges including conspiracy to import and distribute heroin.
- Cantu (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the trial court's evidentiary ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are out-of-court statements made by a government informant to a defendant, offered by the defendant to support an entrapment defense by showing his state of mind, properly excluded as hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Politz
No. The trial court erred in excluding the proffered statements as hearsay. Out-of-court statements are not hearsay if their significance lies solely in the fact that they were made, rather than in their truth. Cantu offered Santander's statements not to prove that Santander actually needed money or wanted Cantu to find clients, but to demonstrate that Santander's persistent inducements affected Cantu's state of mind, which is a crucial element of the entrapment defense. The truth of the statements was irrelevant; the 'fact of their assertion' was what mattered for the defense. The trial court's concern over Cantu's credibility was misplaced, as the veracity of a witness's testimony is a matter for the jury to decide, not a basis for excluding non-hearsay evidence. The exclusion was not harmless error because it deprived Cantu of a critical element of his entrapment defense and made his testimony lack coherence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of evidence law: the distinction between hearsay and non-hearsay use of out-of-court statements. It clarifies that statements offered to show their effect on the listener's state of mind are admissible for that non-hearsay purpose. The ruling protects a defendant's ability to present a complete entrapment defense by allowing testimony about the government agent's words of inducement. This precedent instructs trial courts not to usurp the jury's role of assessing witness credibility under the guise of making a hearsay determination.
