United States v. Dean
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
980 F.2d 1286 (1992)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
In a federal criminal trial, David Dean (defendant) was charged with possession of a firearm. At trial, Deputy Needham was called to the stand. Needham testified that another individual, Darryl Long, had claimed that Dean had extorted money from Long at gunpoint at the mobile home owned by Dean’s wife. Dean objected to the out-of-court statements being admitted, claiming that they were hearsay. The district court allowed the testimony to be admitted over Dean’s objection and instructed the jury that the statements were not meant to prove the truth of the matter asserted but rather to show the reason Needham searched the mobile home. Dean’s wife, the owner of the mobile home, testified that she had consented to Needham searching the property where the gun was found. Dean was convicted of the charged offense. On appeal, Dean argued that the court abused its discretion in allowing the out-of-court statements to be admitted and that without said statements, he would not have been convicted. The government (plaintiff) reiterated its claim that the out-of-court statements were not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that even if the statements were hearsay, admitting them constituted harmless error because other evidence supported the conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
