Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc., 588 F.2d 626 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit

1978

Chapter

6

Title

Hearsay

Page

193

Topic

Hearsay Exceptions:  Statement by Partys Agent

Quick Notes

A wolf might have attacked a little boy.  The wolf was in the custody of a Wild Canid Survival and Research Center employee.  He put a note on the presidents door, had a conversation with the president and Directors meeting minutes discussed the biting indent.  The trial court denied the note, statement and meeting minutes.  The appellant court allowed the Note and Statement, but disallowed the Meeting Minutes.

801(d)(2)(D) Statement by Partys Agent

o         (d) Statements which are not hearsay.

o    A statement is not hearsay if

  (2)Admission by party-opponent.

o         The statement is offered against a party AND is

o         (D) a statement

1.     by the party's agent or servant

2.     concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment,

3.     made during the existence of the relationship, or

Court Note is not hearsay

o         It was [Mr. Poos] own statement, and as such was clearly different from the report statement of another.

o         Mr. Poos had manifested his adoption or belief in its truth.

Court Statement (Servant, Scope, during relationship)

o         The statements were made by Mr. Poos when he was an agent or servant of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center.

o         The statement concerned a matter within the scope of his agency or employment.

o         The statement was made during the existence of that relationship.

Court - Minutes

o         There was no servant, or agency, relationship which justified admitting the evidence of the board minutes as against Mr. Poos.

o         He was non-attending and non-participating.

o         The evidence is not admissible

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether the note, statement and meeting minutes were allowed as non-hearsay evidence?  Yes (Note, Statement) and No (Meeting Minutes)

Procedure

Trial

o         Verdict for the defense

Appellant

o         The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the matter remanded to the District Court for a new trial consistent with this opinion

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl Mahlandt

Df Wild Canid Survival & Research Center

Description

o         A 3 and 10 month old child crossed the street and somehow got mixed up with a wolf that was behind a fence that was chained up.

o         The child started the key.

o         A neighbor saw the wolf straddling the boy and howling.

o         The custodian of the wolf left a note on the President door, had a conversation with the President, and there was a Directors meeting there was minuted recorded of the discussion of the wolf biting the boy.

Denial of Admission #1 Note to the President

o         Mr. Poos leaving a note on ,the President of Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Mr. Sextons Door

Denial of Statement #2 Sophie bit a child

o         Mr. Pooss told Mr. Sexton that Sophie bit a child that day.

Denial of Minutes #3 legal aspect discussion

o         Mr. Poos was not present at the meeting.

o         Legal aspects of the incident of Sophie biting the child were discussed in great detail.

Jury Verdict for the defense

Trial Judge Rationale

o         The trial judge's rationale for excluding the note, the statement, and the corporate minutes, was the same in each case.

o         He reasoned that Mr. Poos did not have any personal knowledge of the facts,

o         The first two admissions were based on hearsay;

o         The third admission contained in the minutes of the board meeting was subject to the same objection of hearsay, and unreliability because of lack of personal knowledge.

Court Note is not hearsay

o         It was [Mr. Poos] own statement, and as such was clearly different from the report statement of another.

o         Mr. Poos had manifested his adoption or belief in its truth.

Court Statement (Servant, Scope, during relationship)

o         The statements were made by Mr. Poos when he was an agent or servant of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center.

o         The statement concerned a matter within the scope of his agency or employment.

o         The statement was made during the existence of that relationship.

Court - Minutes

o         There was not servant, or agency, relationship which justified admitting the evidence of the board minutes as against Mr. Poos.

o         He was non-attending and non-participating.

o         The evidence is not admissible.

Court Holding

o         We hold that Rule 403 does not warrant the exclusion of the evidence of Mr. Poos' statements as against himself or Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc.

FRE 403 Reasoning

o         But the limited admissibility of the corporate minutes, coupled with the repetitive nature of the evidence and the low probative value of the minute record, all justify supporting the judgment of the trial court under Rule 403.

Court - Judgment

o         The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the matter remanded to the District Court for a new trial consistent with this opinion.

Rules

801(d)(2)(D) Statement by Partys Agent

o         (d) Statements which are not hearsay.

o    A statement is not hearsay if

  (2)Admission by party-opponent.

o         The statement is offered against a party AND is

o         (D) a statement

1.     by the party's agent or servant

2.     concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment,

3.     made during the existence of the relationship, or

Class Notes