Analysis of the Case of United States of America vs Pheaster - Essay Example

The abductor demanded a ransom of $400,000 and threatened that if the matter is reported to the police, the family would never see the boy again. However, notwithstanding the threat, the father informed the FBI. Several attempts were made to deliver the money to the kidnapper but all these efforts failed. In July 1974, FBI officers arrested the offender and charged him for the crime of abduction.

In the trial court, evidence given by the boy’s friend indicated the complicity of the defendant in the crime and he was convicted. The aggrieved defendant appealed, claiming that the boy’s testimony was based on her say and thus not admissible in criminal proceedings as conclusive evidence, before the US court of appeal. Issues: The basic concern, in this case, is whether the doctrine of the Hillmon can be applied in circumstances where the defendant has affirmed his intention to do something with any of another person and whether or not he did so.

Procedure: The decision of the district court was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals.Rule: Doctrine of Hillmon which is an Evidence Code of California states that the doctrine is codified in Section 1250(2) which permits the use of such hearsay proof when it is offered to explain or prove the conduct or act of the defendant. The comment to Section 1250(2) states that a statement of the defendant’s aim to do certain acts is admissible to confirm that he did the alleged act. Held: While the court identified the problems and issues with the application of the Hillmon doctrine, it declined to go in opposition to the decision of the trial judge in the case.

Concurrence: Justice Ely (”J. Ely”) concurred with the decision, but wrote emphasizing his disagreement with the Hillmon doctrine, suggesting that “evidence of one person’s intention to do something should not be admissible to prove what another person did do” (Bloomberg Law, pg.2). Discussion: In this case, the statements made by the friend of Larry demonstrate that Larry planned to meet Angelo in the parking lot, “and the issue is whether he met Angelo in the parking lot.

The opposite inference is that Angelo met Larry in the parking lot, so it requires an inferential step for two people” (Bloomberg Law, pg.2). Larry’s state of mind was to demonstrate that somebody else did something.