Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1978 · Evidence

EvidenceAdmissions by party-opponentHearsayFederal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)Rule 801(d)(2)(A)Rule 801(d)(2)(C)Rule 801(d)(2)(D)Rule 403

Facts

A child was injured near an enclosure where Sophie, a wolf kept by Kenneth Poos at his home, was chained. Shortly after the incident, Poos left a note for Owen Sexton stating, "Sophie bit a child that came in our back yard," and later told Sexton that "Sophie had bit a child that day." At a later board meeting of the corporate defendant, minutes reflected discussion of "the incident of Sophie biting the child." The trial court excluded all three items because Poos lacked personal knowledge of how the child was injured and the court viewed the statements as hearsay or unreliable.

Issue

Whether Poos's note and oral statement, and the board-meeting minute entry, were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) despite the declarants' lack of personal knowledge. Also, whether Rule 403 nevertheless justified exclusion of those items.

Rule

Under Rule 801(d)(2), a party's own statement is admissible against that party, and an agent's statement is admissible against the principal if made during the agency relationship and concerning a matter within the scope of that relationship. Rule 801(d)(2) does not impose an implied personal-knowledge requirement, and internal or "in-house" statements are not excluded merely because they were not communicated to outsiders. Rules 805 and 403 may provide separate grounds for exclusion, but they do not insert a personal-knowledge requirement into Rule 801(d)(2)(D).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nina Torres was sued after a visitor was injured near equipment stored behind her house. An hour later, Nina left a handwritten note for her lawyer's assistant stating, "My generator shocked the neighbor's son this afternoon," although Nina had not actually seen the incident.

In the visitor's civil suit against Nina, is the note admissible against Nina under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority held that a party's own statement is admissible against that party under Rule 801(d)(2)(A), even if the declarant lacked personal knowledge of the underlying facts. The court rejected reading a firsthand-knowledge requirement into Rule 801(d)(2). It also rejected the notion that internal communications are excluded for that reason.