Mahone v. Lehman

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003 · Evidence

EvidenceHearsayPrejudicial evidentiary errorhearsayout-of-court diagnosiscredibilityprejudicenew trial

Facts

At trial, Mahone testified that his confinement in a strip cell caused him severe psychological harm. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked him to tell the jury what mental health providers had diagnosed him with, and over a hearsay objection the court allowed him to recount that Western State Hospital psychiatrists said they believed he was "faking it" before giving some other diagnosis. Mahone's counsel renewed the hearsay objection, moved to strike, and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard the answer, but the court did not strike the testimony. The challenged testimony went directly to Mahone's credibility and his claim of mental and emotional injury.

Issue

Whether the district court erred by admitting Mahone's testimony recounting an out-of-court psychiatrist's opinion that he was lying about his symptoms, and if so, whether that error was prejudicial enough to require a new trial.

Rule

An extra-judicial statement is hearsay and inadmissible when the immediate inference the proponent wants the jury to draw depends on the truth of the statement's assertion. A jury verdict may be reversed for evidentiary error only if the appellant shows prejudice, meaning that more probably than not the error tainted the verdict.

🔒

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 a civil battery trial in Portland, Omar Ruiz seeks damages for ongoing panic attacks after a nightclub altercation. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks Omar what a non-testifying counselor at Cascade Harbor Clinic told him, and Omar answers that the counselor said he was "playing up the symptoms for money."

If the defense offers that answer to show Omar is not truly suffering serious emotional injury, how should the court rule on a hearsay objection?

Explanation. The statement is hearsay when the immediate inference sought by the proponent depends on the truth of the statement's assertion. Here, the jury could conclude Omar is exaggerating only if it accepts as true the counselor's assertion that he is "playing up" his symptoms. That is the core hearsay problem identified by the majority. (Derived from Mahone v. Lehman (n.d.).)