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

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

D called his fiancée, Mary Statten, as a witness. She mentioned a contract D signed prior to coming to Minnesota, which, according to her, led her and D to believe he was participating in a legitimate business venture. P did not object to her mentioning the contract. On cross-examination, P questioned her quite extensively about the contract. She replied that the contract involved Thermo-Dynamics and that Jackson had hired D for six months for $40,000 as a promoter. On re-direct examination, Statten identified an exhibit as the contract of employment. P and Jackson objected to the exhibit as hearsay. The trial court sustained the objection. D’s counsel argued that the exhibit was not being offered for its truth but rather to show D's state of mind, or as a response to P's cross-examination which implied that the contract was a recent fabrication. The trial court questioned whether the contract had been authenticated. The court excluded the contract. D was convicted and appealed.

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

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