Appellant Name: Tony Fontaine
Appellant Attorney(s): Oscar Sparrowhill, Cyrus Raven
Appellant Attorney(s): Oscar Sparrowhill, Cyrus Raven
Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Hugh R. Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:
Presiding Trial Judge: Honorable Hugh R. Allgood
Notice of Appeal Filed:
- [X] Before Verdict
[ ] After Verdict
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
- [X] Motion to be overturned
[ ] Errors in the trials procedure
[ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
[ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
- The Defense believes that part of the ruling made on the motion to suppress, specifically Exhibit #2 (see HERE) is not in line with previous rulings in the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals that have established precedent on what evidence is allowed under the hearsay exceptions and the court's view on directly quoting individuals outside of the courtroom.
The decision by Honorable Hugh R. Allgood concludes:
Judge Allgood cites the rules of evidence, specifically section 2.6.10, stating ''For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible.''. However, looking at the full paragraph, the following is stated.As per your Court Decision in #23-CM-0024, State of San Andreas v. Doris Murray, in combination with the court's rules of evidence (2.6.10), "For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible." This is direct testimony from the Officer recalling a statement they heard. The Officer is not making a statement about what was specifically said, merely that some information was relayed over the radio. Since the Officer was there at the time of the details they are describing, the proper foundation has been laid. As such, this suppression should be denied.
In the case of #23-CM-0035, State of San Andreas v. Tony Fontaine, Exhibit #2 is testimony that is being offered to prove the truth of a matter. (Whether or not the Defendant communicated to someone over radio that an Officer was alone). Furthermore, Exhibit #2 goes on to directly quote a statement made out of court. As per the Rules of Evidence, ''Hearsay is considered untrustworthy because the speaker of the out-of-court statement did not make the statement under oath and is not present in court to be cross-examined.''.Testimony not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is, by definition, not hearsay. For example, testimony to show that a statement was said and heard, or to show that the speaker could speak a certain language, or to show the subsequent actions of a listener, is admissible.
To conclude, this issue has had precent set in the past:
- #22-CM-0066, State of San Andreas v. Hassan Readick
- #22-CM-0071, State of San Andreas v. Vince Williams
- #22-CM-0057, State of San Andreas v. Ali Valentine
- #23-CM-0001, State of San Andreas v. Lennox Jet
In previous court cases, precedent has been set by the court that witness statement are not covered under the exception to hearsay as a witness, even if a public employee, cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom has said.