STATE v. JACKSON (2021)

Writ application denied.

Defense counsel filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude as hearsay an anonymous tipster statement made to a law enforcement officer regarding what he perceived as an ongoing emergency, notwithstanding the fact this Court has already ruled on its admissibility in the context of a Motion to Suppress. State v. Jackson, 20-0124 (La. 1/31/20), 289 So.3d 45. In response to the statement, the officer made contact with the defendant, found a semi-automatic gun with an extended magazine in his immediate proximity and arrested him for the crime of Possession of a Firearm by Convicted Felon (La. R.S. 14:95.1). As mentioned, we previously found the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle, thereby concluding that the “information from the citizen informant had all the earmarks of reliability: it was an eye witness account of a dangerous situation, volunteered and personally reported immediately after the conduct was observed, and the subsequent police investigation corroborated the information.” Jackson at 46.

Because this fundamental evidence issue appears frequently in our courts, I write separately to set forth my view that by definition, an out of court statement is not inadmissible hearsay if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but rather to explain why the officer took action. La. C.E. art. 801. See also Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., Inc., (La. 4/30/90), 561 So.2d 76, 81 (the Court finding an out-of-court statement was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the out-of-court statement); and State in the Interest of S.L., 11-883, p. 13 (La. App. 5th Cir. 4/24/12), 94 So.3d 822, 833, citing State v. Watson, 449 So.2d 1321, 1328 (La.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 939, 83 L.Ed.2d 952 (1985); State v. Ballay, 99-906 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/29/00), 757 So.2d 115, 127, writ denied, 00-908 (La. 4/20/01), 790 So.2d 13; and State v. Calloway, 324 So.2d 801, 809 (La. 1975) (the court finding that police officers may refer to statements made to them by other persons involved in the case in order to explain their actions, and that such statements are not to prove the truth of the statement being made, but rather are offered to explain the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the defendant, and, as such, are not hearsay). Such a statement is non-testimonial in nature and its admission does not offend the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. Amend. VI) or Michael D. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.