On direct examination, Larry Westall testified that he had told officers who were searching for defendant in Larry's trailer that they might find defendant at his father's house, but that the officers had seemed uninterested in the directions to his father's house. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Larry if he had told Detective
that defendant's father had said that defendant had come to his
house around 10:30 p.m. and asked to borrow his car, that
defendant's father had refused to give it to him, and that defendant
had left. Larry Westall denied making any such statement. In
rebuttal, Detective Hollifield testified that Larry had made such a
statement in his presence. The trial court properly admitted the
prior inconsistent statement for the non-hearsay purpose of
In State v. Green, 296 N.C. 183, 192-93, 250 S.E.2d 197, 203 (1978), our Supreme court addressed this exact issue.
further stated that impeachment of an alibi witness "respected the
main subject matter in regard to which such witnesses were examined,
namely, the whereabouts of the defendant at the time the offense is
alleged to have been committed." Id. at 194, 250 S.E.2d at 204.
Whether or not Larry's testimony can be considered an alibi, his
"close connection" to the defendant allows for extrinsic evidence to
be used in impeaching his testimony, despite being a collateral
matter. Thus, it was not error to allow testimony concerning Larry's
prior out-of-court statement.
The fact that Larry's statement itself contained a statement by defendant's father did not render Larry's statement inadmissible. The father's statement, relayed by Larry, explained why the deputies did not subsequently look for defendant at the father's house. Such use does not constitute hearsay. "[T]here was no hearsay - within - hearsay problem presented here because the statements of the third party declarants were not offered for their truth, but to explain the officer's conduct." State v. Harper, 96 N.C. App. 36, 40, 384 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1989). Statements of one person to another are admissible to explain the subsequent conduct of the person to whom the statement was made. State v. White, 298 N.C. 430, 259 S.E.2d 281 (1979). Larry's prior statement to the deputy was not offered to prove the
truth of the
matter asserted, but rather to explain the officers' actions, and
was, therefore, not hearsay.
Date Printed: July 6, 1999
Published August 15, 2006. Report broken links or other problems.
© PWC Consulting. Visit our website at www.preventwrongfulconvictions.org for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.