Writ application denied.
At trial, defense counsel objected to an introduction of an anonymous Crimestopper tip. The trial court appropriately permitted “very limited” testimony about the content of the tip, reasoning that it was necessary to explain how the detective came to investigate the defendant and two witnesses. The trial court found that the testimony was not hearsay, concluding that it was not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to explain the course of the investigation and the steps leading to defendants arrest. The court of appeal affirmed the conviction and this court has correctly denied the defendants writ.
Because this fundamental evidence issue appears frequently in our courts, I write separately to set forth my view that by definition, an out of court statement is not inadmissible hearsay if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but rather to explain why the officer took action. La. C.E. art. 801(A). See State v. Leroy Jackson, (La. 3/2/21), ––– So.3d ––––, 2021 WL 807345 (this Court finding that an anonymous tipster statement made to a law enforcement officer regarding an ongoing emergency was not hearsay as it was not offered to prove the truth of the statement being made, but rather to explain the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the defendant); See also Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., Inc., (La. 4/30/90), 561 So.2d 76, 81 (the Court finding an out-of-court statement was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in the out-of-court statement); and State in the Interest of S.L., 11-883, p. 13 (La. App. 5th Cir. 4/24/12), 94 So.3d 822, 833, citing State v. Watson, 449 So.2d 1321, 1328 (La.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 939, 83 L.Ed.2d 952 (1985); State v. Ballay, 99-906 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/29/00), 757 So.2d 115, 127, writ denied, 00-908 (La. 4/20/01), 790 So.2d 13; and State v. Calloway, 324 So.2d 801, 809 (La. 1975) (the court finding that police officers may refer to statements made to them by other persons involved in the case in order to explain their actions, and that such statements are not to prove the truth of the statement being made, but rather are offered to explain the sequence of events leading to the arrest of the defendant, and, as such, are not hearsay). Such a statement is non-testimonial in nature and its admission does not offend the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. Amend. VI) or Michael D. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
Crichton, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.