Edwards v. Spalding

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that testimony offered to explain investigative activities was not hearsay
• finding the officers’ testimony on their receipt of a tip about a gambling operation in the town was not hearsay as it was offered to explain the subsequent investigative activities of the witnesses and was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
• finding the officers’ testimony on their receipt of a tip about a gambling operation in the town was not hearsay as it was offered to explain the subsequent investigative activities of the witnesses and was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
• “extrajudicial statements made by an out-of-court declarant are properly admissible to explain the actions of a witness to whom the statement was directed”
• “The testimony at issue was offered to explain the subsequent investigatory activities of the witnesses. It was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
• “[T]he Ohio Supreme Court recognized that out of court statements are admissible, ‘to explain the actions of a witness to whom the statement was directed.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).