United States v. Eddie Lee Stone

604 F.2d 922, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11173, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 1495
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 16, 1979
Docket79-5116
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 604 F.2d 922 (United States v. Eddie Lee Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eddie Lee Stone, 604 F.2d 922, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11173, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 1495 (5th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

*924 THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal from a conviction for possession of stolen mail we must decide whether the government violated the hearsay rule and the defendant’s right of confrontation when the government used an affidavit instead of live testimony for the purpose of explaining how an official record demonstrated that the Treasury Department mailed a check that the defendant later had in his possession. We find that this special use of the affidavit violates the hearsay rule and the defendant’s confrontation right. This violation does not require a reversal, however, because under these circumstances it constitutes harmless error.

I.

Stone was convicted in a jury trial under 18 U.S.C. § .1708 1 for possession of an item, in this case a United States Treasury check, stolen from the mails. Stone was acquitted of uttering the same check.

To prove that the check was in the mail, the government presented as a witness Gwendolyn G. Howard, the payee of the check in question. Howard testified that she was employed by a Veterans Administration Hospital in Florida during 1975, and that she received her paycheck in the mail every two weeks at her residence. She identified a check dated June 30, 1975 as her payroll check for that period, and testified that she never received it. When she failed to receive her check in the mail on June 30, 1975, she obtained a duplicate check at the hospital. Her original check dated June 30, 1975, and numbered 69,137,-606 was found to have been in Stone’s possession, and was introduced into evidence.

The government also presented a progress sheet 2 from the Treasury Department’s Regional Disbursing Center in Austin, Texas, for the purpose of showing that the check had been placed in the mail. The sheet was an official disbursement form that was marked in part as follows: “PAYMENT DATE 6-30-75 “OBJECT SALARY.” and “AGENCY: VA: COMPOSITE-BULK-DIRECT.” The sheet specified that 99,625 “checks or bonds” were disbursed on that date in a total amount of $65,751,002.39. Checks or bonds numbered 69,108,660 to 69,205,121 were under the category “Direct.” The sheet was marked to show the various stages of processing checks. In particular, the checks were marked “mailed or delivered” and “Date and time released: 6/27/75 4:00.” The government authenticated this document by attaching an affidavit from staff assistant Alan Ford, the officer with legal custody and direct supervision of the progress sheets. Ford’s affidavit identified his position in the first paragraph, then stated that

I further certify that the attached document is a true copy of Treasury Department disbursing records related to check number 69,137,626, dated June 30, 1975, payable to Gwendolyn G. Howard, 2120 E University AV, NO 14, Gainesville, FL *925 32601, in the amount of $219.91, issued by G. Clark, Regional Disbursing Officer, over symbol 2205. It consists of a photographic copy of the Progress Sheet used to control the issuance and mailing of the check indicating that such check was individually inserted in an envelope and was mailed on June 27, 1975 with a group of other individually enclosed checks bearing the serial numbers 69,019,681 to 69,205,-121.

Counsel for Stone made proper objections against the admission of the affidavit with these explanatory sentences. The judge overruled the objections, and allowed the full affidavit into evidence. Neither the government nor Stone called Ford to testify in person, although no evidence suggests he was unavailable for the trial. The hearsay and confrontation issues are the only points raised on appeal.

II.

Stone does not challenge the admissibility of the progress sheet itself. This sheet was properly admitted under the hearsay exceptions in Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) for records of regularly conducted activity and Fed.R. Evid. 803(8) for public records and reports. The sheet was properly authenticated under Fed.R.Evid. 902(4) by Ford’s attached affidavit.

Stone challenges the admission only of the extraneous explanatory statements in Ford’s affidavit. To satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 902(4), Ford’s authenticating affidavit needed only to identify his position of authority and to state that the copy was correct. Ford’s affidavit includes these items. Ford’s affidavit goes on, however, to explain in detail that the progress sheet refers to Howard’s particular check, and that the sheet shows that Howard’s check was actually placed in the mail, although the sheet itself only states that certain numbered checks were “mailed or delivered.” The admission of these statements without Ford’s actual testimony prevented Stone from cross-examining Ford about his explanation of the form.

At oral argument counsel for the government displayed little concern for Stone’s need to cross-examine Ford. Government counsel asserted that they typically use such ex parte affidavits to explain the meaning of office records in litigation. The government’s frequent and flagrant use of this method for proving an essential element of a crime does not justify its impropriety. When an ex parte affidavit presents evidence beyond the simple authentication requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 902(4), the extraneous portions of the affidavit constitute inadmissible hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 801. The government relied upon Whiteside v. United States, 346 F.2d 500 (8 Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1023, 86 S.Ct. 1946, 16 L.Ed.2d 1025 (1966), to show that an affidavit and progress sheet can be used to prove that a check was mailed under 18 U.S.C. § 1708. In White-side, however, the regional disbursing officer actually appeared and testified in the case; the defendant’s right to cross-examine the witness was preserved.

The government contends that Ford’s statements in the affidavit should be admissible under the hearsay exception for public reports in Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(A). This section provides that

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
******
(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Fernando Noria
945 F.3d 847 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)
Richard G. Ortega v. Cach, LLC
396 S.W.3d 622 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
United States v. Bernard McGee
439 F. App'x 837 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
San Francisco Baykeeper v. WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
791 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. California, 2011)
United States v. Harcrow
66 M.J. 154 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2008)
Wert v. Mesesick
Vermont Superior Court, 2005
King v. Town of Wallkill
302 F. Supp. 2d 279 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Mason v. State
853 So. 2d 544 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
United States v. Estabrook
78 F. Supp. 2d 558 (N.D. Texas, 1999)
Watson v. State
917 S.W.2d 65 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Young v. United States Department of Agriculture
53 F.3d 728 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
In Re Prudhomme
152 B.R. 91 (W.D. Louisiana, 1993)
Cole v. State
839 S.W.2d 798 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
United States v. Ras McCreary and Otis Meeks
901 F.2d 1028 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Mena
863 F.2d 1522 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)
The United States of America v. Willie Lee Dancy
861 F.2d 77 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)
State v. Rivera
515 A.2d 182 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1986)
United States v. Yeoman
22 M.J. 762 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1986)
United States v. Oscar Ramos Quezada
754 F.2d 1190 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
604 F.2d 922, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 11173, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 1495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eddie-lee-stone-ca5-1979.