In U.S. v. Jimenez, No. 08-14192 (April 7, 2009), the Court affirmed marijuana trafficking convictions.
The trial court admitted the testimony of a detective, that, before resuming the questioning of Jimenez inside the marijuana grow house where Jimenez was arrested, he went over to the defendant’s brother in the grow house, and the brother said that Jimenez was living with him and helping him with the marijuana plants. On appeal, Jimenez claimed that the admission of this out-of-court statement violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The Court rejected this argument, noting that in the trial court Jimenez had only objected on hearsay, not Confrontation Clause, grounds. Thus, the issue was reviewed for "plain error."
In addition, the statement was admissible as non-hearsay, because it was admitted not for its truth, but to show why the detective then resumed his questioning of Jimenez. The prejudicial impact of the admission statement that Jimenez was helping to grow marijuana was "minimal" in light of the "abundance of physical evidence," and in light of Jimenez’ unambiguous confession that he had participated in the marijuana grow operation.
