People v. James
New York Court of Appeals
717 N.E.2d 1052 (1999)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Lieutenant Michael Gordon set up a meeting to illegally provide information to several people about an upcoming transit-police promotional exam. A few hours before the meeting, Gordon called a woman who was expected to attend the meeting and told her that Samuel James (defendant) had agreed to come to the meeting. This telephone call was recorded. During a grand-jury investigation into the matter, James denied attending the meeting. James was then charged with perjury. Gordon was not available to testify at James’s perjury trial. However, the trial court ruled that Gordon’s recorded statement about James’s plan to attend the meeting was admissible because it met the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule. James was convicted of perjury and appealed. On appeal, James argued that the state-of-mind exception was limited to the speaker’s own plans and did not apply to statements by someone else about James’s alleged plans.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Levine, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
