Sidebar: hearsay objection

📄 Sidebar: hearsay objection — Monday, December 9, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\9\SIDEBAR-HEARSAY-OBJECTION.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 28 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Fred Goldman (part 1) Direct examination of Fred Goldman (part 2) ▶

Date: Monday, December 9, 1996 • Utterances: 8

Defense attorney Baker objected to Petrocelli's line of questioning about restaurant plans Ron Goldman had been developing, found by his father after Ron's death. Petrocelli argued the plans were not offered for truth of the matter asserted (not hearsay) and went to the loss of society damages claim. Baker argued they were irrelevant because there was no economic relationship at issue. Judge Fujisaki overruled the objection.

# 1 MR. BAKER:

I'm going to object on relevancy grounds and hearsay.

# 2 THE COURT:

Approach the bench.

# 3 (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

# 4 MR. PETROCELLI:

I have a few more questions in this line. After Ron's death, when they went to his apartment, his father found Ron's plans to open up his restaurant, and there's a little diagram of what it was going to look like. And I'm just going to ask him a few questions about that.

It's not offered for the truth of the matter, so it's not hearsay. It goes to the nature of the relationship between the two of them, which is the heart of the issue here.

# 5 MR. BAKER:

It doesn't go to the nature of the relationship at all. He's testified as to he would -- whether he would invest. Whether Ron had made some plans to do it or not is totally irrelevant. There's no issue of Ron ever supporting his father in this case at all. There's no economic relationship at all. And hence, it has no relevancy in this case.

# 6 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's not a monetary issue; it goes to the loss of society. That's the only issue that we are proffering in this case.

KEY QUOTE

# 7 MR. BAKER:

A business enterprise doesn't go to loss of society, in my opinion, sir, and it's irrelevant.

# 8 THE COURT:

Overruled.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Daniel Petrocelli

It's not offered for the truth of the matter, so it's not hearsay. It goes to the nature of the relationship between the two of them, which is the heart of the issue here.

Classic hearsay-avoidance argument — Petrocelli reframes the exhibit's purpose to sidestep the hearsay rule entirely.

Robert Baker

There's no issue of Ron ever supporting his father in this case at all. There's no economic relationship at all. And hence, it has no relevancy in this case.

Baker frames relevance narrowly around economic damages, missing or ignoring the loss-of-society theory.

Daniel Petrocelli

It's not a monetary issue; it goes to the loss of society. That's the only issue that we are proffering in this case.

Clarifies the damages theory — loss of society, not financial dependency — which controls the relevance analysis.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Ron Goldman's plans to open a restaurant, including a diagram, found by his father Fred Goldman after Ron's death

discussed, objection overruled

Notable Exchanges (1)

Robert Baker•Daniel Petrocelli

Baker argues the restaurant plans are irrelevant because there is no economic relationship between Ron and his father at issue; Petrocelli corrects the framing — the claim is loss of society, not financial support.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8543 • 8 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103