Vincelette v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. - 1998 MT 259, 291 Mont. 261, 968 P.2d 275

Rule:

Hearsay is a statement, other than one by a party while testifying at the trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Mont. R. Evid. 802(c). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the rules of evidence.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Darlene M. Vincelette, commenced the present action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained while a guest of the defendant, Billings Sheraton Hotel. Plaintiff asserted that the cause of the fall was either a defect in the carpeting or negligent maintenance of the carpeting. The defendant hotel denied any defect or negligence, and alleged that the plaintiff was intoxicated, and that her condition was the cause of her fall. Plaintiff moved the district court prior to trial for an order excluding testimony from hotel employees that they had been told that plaintiff was drunk. The district court did not rule on the motion. At trial, one of the hotel's maintenance engineers was allowed to testify that he had received a radio call from another hotel employee, who stated that plaintiff was drunk. Plaintiff’s counsel moved to strike the testimony as hearsay, but the motion was denied. The district court also refused to allow plaintiff to admit photographs of the entryway, taken seven years after the accident, which were offered to illustrate the testimony of several witnesses regarding the condition of the carpet. The district court found in favor of the defendant hotel, and the plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

1. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it allowed a witness to testify about out-of-court statements made by an unidentified declarant?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it refused to admit photographs offered as demonstrative evidence?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the district court erred when it allowed the witness to testify about out-of-court statements made by an unidentified declarant. According to the court, the evidence that the defendant hotel sought to present, suggesting that plaintiff was drunk, was an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what was asserted, and was inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Rules 801(c) and 802, M.R.Evid. Anent the second issue, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion by not admitting the photographs, given the several years between the accident and when the photographs were taken, as well as the change in the condition of the carpeting.