Pierre Roberts is being tried for assault on Mary Jamison on June 11,
1998. On June 11, 1998 Pierre and Mary lived together in Apartment 3 at
206 Brackett Street. Mary Jamison is not available to testify. A few days
before the trial she disappeared along with her 5 year old son, Christopher.
The defendant is confident.
The State's Attorney offers the following in evidence:
- Original 911 tape recording of emergency call received by the police
on June 11, 1998 and testimony of the 911 operator that the police computer-telephone
indicated that call came from 206 Brackett Street, Apt. 3 at 10:10 p.m..
The voice is that of a child, "He's hitting her! He's hitting her! It's
awful! Please help!" The police officer who responded to the call recognizes
the voice on the tape recording as that of Christopher Jamisonů
- Testimony by a neighbor in Apt. 4 that at about 10:00 p.m. on June
11, 1998 Mary Jamison arrived at her apartment disheveled and panting
with Christopher in her arms crying "I can't take it any more...he got
drunk and beat me up. Chris called 911!"
- Testimony by a doctor who examined Mary Jamison at the emergency room
of the local hospital at about 10:30 p.m on June 11, 1998 at the request
of the police to document injuries and render any necessary treatment.
(No medical treatment was actually rendered). "She told me that she
had got into an argument with her boyfriend and that he hit her."
The defendant's attorney objects to each of these proffers as hearsay.
What ruling and why?
Assume that each of these offers of evidence is admitted and that the
State offers no other evidence. At the conclusion of the State's evidence
the defendant's attorney moves for a directed verdict of acquittal. What
ruling and why?