State v. Dullard

Supreme Court of Iowa · 2003 · Evidence

EvidenceHearsayImplied assertionsSufficiency of the evidenceConstructive possessionhearsayimplied assertionwritten note

Facts

Police searched a house where Dullard lived with his mother and a detached garage after receiving a report of a methamphetamine lab. In the garage, officers found materials commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine, including three unopened boxes of Benadryl, and a spiral notebook containing a handwritten note from an unidentified person addressed to "B" warning that a black-and-white police car and an officer were nearby. The State offered the note not for the truth of its express contents, but to connect Dullard to the garage materials by implying the writer believed Dullard was involved with them. Dullard objected on hearsay grounds.

Issue

Whether a handwritten note from an unknown declarant, offered to show the declarant's implied belief that Dullard possessed or controlled methamphetamine-manufacturing materials, was hearsay and inadmissible. Also, whether the evidence admitted at trial, including the note, was sufficient to support the conviction so that retrial was permissible.

Rule

Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801(a), assertions implied from assertive speech are statements, and when such implied assertions are offered to prove the fact implied, they are hearsay. Such evidence is inadmissible unless a hearsay exemption or exception applies. For retrial purposes after reversal for evidentiary error, sufficiency is assessed on all evidence admitted at trial, including erroneously admitted evidence.

🔒

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.

Police in Cedar Rapids searched a duplex basement used by several residents and found jars, tubing, and cold-medicine tablets associated with drug production. In a desk drawer, officers found a handwritten note addressed to "M": "Move the boxes now—someone in a patrol jacket has been circling the alley." The prosecution offers the note to show Marcus Hale knew about and controlled the materials in the basement.

Under the majority rule, is the note hearsay?

Explanation. The majority held that assertions implied from assertive oral or written speech are statements under the hearsay rule. When assertive words are offered to prove the fact implied by the declarant's belief, the evidence is hearsay even if not offered for the truth of the note's express content. Here, the note's relevance depends on the writer's implied belief that Marcus knew of or controlled the contraband. That is hearsay absent an applicable exemption or exception. (Derived from State v. Dullard (n.d.).)