In 2021 a Grafton man was charged with animal cruelty after allegedly spraying his mother’s dog with foam insulation and lifting him off the ground by his collar. The dog, for his part, bit the man twice, once in the arm and once in the stomach. It’s unclear who (dog or man) was the “first aggressor.”
The case was tried before a jury in Westborough District Court. At trial the arresting officer testified that the man’s mother told police her son provoked and strangled the dog using the animal’s collar.
Defense counsel objected to this testimony, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay.
The trial judge overruled the object. According to the judge, the hearsay statements were admissible because the mother was in court and willing to testify.
When the mother did testify, she repudiated the officer’s statements. She told the jury that her son never provoked or choked the animal.
Despite this, the jury convicted the defendant.
The man appealed his conviction, arguing that the officer’s testimony regarding the mother’s out-of-court statements was impermissible hearsay.
The Appeals Court agreed with the defendant. The court’s opinion states:
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Hearsay is not admissible unless it is subject to an exception. The statements the defendant’s mother made to [the police] at the home were offered for their truth and, on this record, are not subject to an exception. That the mother was going to testify later in the trial is not an exception to the rule against hearsay. (Emphasis added. Citations and quotations omitted.)
The full text of the opinion is attached below.