United States v. William Freeman Snow
517 F.2d 441, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14480 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A name tag affixed to an object is not an inadmissible hearsay statement but is instead admissible circumstantial evidence of ownership, from which possession or a connection to the object can be inferred.
Facts:
- Police officers found a briefcase on premises frequently visited by Bill Snow.
- Inside the briefcase was an unregistered automatic weapon.
- A red tape was affixed to the outside of the briefcase with the lettering 'Tri. Tron. Electronics' and 'Bill Snow.'
- A latent fingerprint belonging to Bill Snow was found on the weapon inside the case.
- Prior to the police discovery, Snow had been seen on the same premises carrying a case that had a name tape affixed to it.
- A witness who had previously seen Snow with a case testified that the briefcase introduced at trial was not the one she had seen in his possession.
Procedural Posture:
- Bill Snow was charged in federal trial court with knowingly possessing an unregistered firearm.
- At trial, the government sought to introduce a briefcase containing the firearm, which had a name tag bearing Snow's name.
- Over Snow's hearsay objection, the trial court admitted the briefcase and the attached name tag into evidence.
- A jury convicted Bill Snow of the charge.
- Snow, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting the name tag into evidence. The United States is the appellee.
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 name tag affixed to a briefcase, bearing the defendant's name and offered to prove ownership of the briefcase, constitute inadmissible hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Sneed, Circuit Judge
No. A name tag affixed to a briefcase does not constitute inadmissible hearsay; it is admissible circumstantial evidence. The court rejected the argument that the tape is an out-of-court assertion stating, 'This case belongs to Bill Snow,' offered for its truth. Instead, the court adopted Wigmore's evidentiary framework, classifying the name tag not as a testimonial assertion, but as 'Circumstantial or Indirect Evidence.' Specifically, the court characterized the tag as a 'mechanical trace,' akin to a brand on an animal, a license plate, or a fingerprint—a physical characteristic of the object itself from which inferences can be drawn. The admissibility of such evidence is governed by the standard of relevancy; the tape is admissible because it makes the inference of Snow's ownership more probable. The possibility that the evidence could be explained away (e.g., someone else affixed the tag) goes to its weight for the jury to consider, not its admissibility.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between hearsay and circumstantial evidence regarding identifying marks on physical objects. By classifying a name tag as a 'mechanical trace,' the court reinforces a traditional, Wigmore-influenced view that treats such identifiers as non-assertive physical facts rather than testimonial statements. This precedent simplifies the process for prosecutors to introduce evidence linking a defendant to an object, such as contraband or a weapon, without needing to overcome a hearsay objection. The ruling directs courts to focus on whether an item is presented as an assertion or as a physical characteristic from which logical inferences can be made.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. William Freeman Snow