8/3/2019 Evidence 13 27 Doctrine
1/1
MAHLANDT VS WILD CANID SURVIVAL & RESEARCH CENTER588 F. 2D
6261978
QUICK SUMMARY:
This case is about a four year old boy who was tragically mauled
by Sophie, a bitch wolf. A4 year old child was walking to his
neighbors house to get his brother. A neighbor heard
screams, looked out his window, and saw that the boy was in an
enclosure in which Mr.Poos, a neighbor, kept a wolf that he used in
his educational trips to neighborhood schools,and that the head of
the wolf was near the child. Nobody saw the wolf bite the
child.Theadmissibility of three statements made by Mr. Poos (the
keeper of the wolf) are put intoquestion.
DOCTRINES:
Admissions are not hearsay. Poos was making his own statement
when he said Sophie bita child, therefore it is an admission. Had
he said, "I heard that the wolf bit somebody,"then that would be
hearsay, not an admission.
~
The statement is admissible against the corporation but not
against Mr. Poos as he was notpresent in the meeting. According to
Rule 801(d)(2)(d), the statement is not hearsay if the
statement is offered against a party and is a statement by his
agent or servant concerning amatter within the scope of his agency
or employment, made during the existence of therelationship. In
this case, the statements appearing in the minutes were made by Mr.
Pooswhen he was an agent or servant of the Wild Canid Survival and
Research Center, Inc.,and they concerned a matter within the scope
of his agency, or employment, i.e., hiscustody of Sophie, and were
made during the existence of that relationship.
~
It is not necessary that the declarant have personal knowledge
of the things about which hemakes statements, as it is up to the
jury to give appropriate weight to those statements.This goes to
weight, not admissibility.
PEOPLE VS SOLIMANGR NO L-9723JUNE 28, 1957
QUICK SUMMARY:
Soliman and friends were charged with murder of Mr. Basa. They
claimed self-defense andthey tried to introduce in evidence the
violent and quarrelsome character of Mr. Basa. TheCourt disallowed
it because the introduction of character evidence is not allowed in
casesof murder (w/ treachery and premeditation).
DOCTRINE:
While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to
determine the probability orimprobability of the commission of an
offense, such is not necessary in crime of murder
where the killing is committed through treachery premeditation.
The proof of such charactermay only be allowed in homicide cases to
show "that it has produced a reasonable belief ofimminent danger in
the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a
promptdefensive action was necessary." This rule does not apply to
cases of murder.
