This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Medhin was found dead of a gunshot to the mouth. D was charged with the murder. P claimed that D murdered Medhin because he owed D money. A friend of the deceased, Tesfalem Ellos, testified that Medhin told him he was afraid for his life because he owed someone the money. Medhin made a call on Ellos’s phone and told the person who answered that he did not have the money. After learning of the death, Ellos retried the number. A person with a Jamaican accent answered and called himself Dominique. Dl’s wife testified that D was often called Dominique. Ellos and Dominique talked about how Ellos might repay Medhin’s debt. The prosecution introduced the testimony from Ellos concerning the phone call as admissible under the hearsay rule as a party admission. D objected. D was convicted and appealed. D maintains the trial court improperly admitted Ellos' testimony about his phone conversation with 'Dominique.'

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.