Earth Day, 1971. Keep America Beautiful launches a TV ad featuring scene-after-scene of polluted rivers, trash-strewn highways, mountainous landfills and billowing industrial smokestacks, ending with a close-up of an American Indian with a single tear flowing down his cheek. Not a word was spoken during that 60-second span, yet anyone who saw it is unlikely to ever forget the message. In fact, even today that commercial is considered one of the most powerful and successful ad campaigns of all time, demonstrating how silence sometimes speaks louder than words.
There are two basic types of silence which are of concern in evidentiary law. The last blog focused upon mere silence accompanied by no other conduct which would indicate an intention to communicate. As discussed, under certain circumstances, this type of silence is admissible as an admission.
The second type of silence is nonverbal conduct which substitutes for a verbal expression. This often involves facial expressions or gestures, such as the single tear rolling down the cheek, the pointing of a finger or the nod of a head. These forms of nonverbal communication may also, under certain circumstances, be admissible, but because they are meant to substitute for verbal communication, they are admissible only if the hearsay objection can be overcome.
Texas Rules of Evidence 801(d) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” At first blush, this rule would not encompass nonverbal acts. However, Rule 801(a)(2) defines “statement” to include “nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as a substitute for verbal expression.” Therefore, when nonverbal conduct is intended to substitute for verbal expression, it will be treated as though the words implied by the nonverbal conduct were actually spoken. If the conduct or gesture was made out of court and is offered for the truth of the matter inferred by it, then it is subject to the hearsay bar.
Take note, however, that a nonverbal expression is not a substitute for verbal expression unless it was intended to be one. Both the Texas Rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence provide that nonverbal expressions are considered hearsay only when the nonverbal conduct was “intended as a substitute for verbal expression” or “intended as an assertion,” respectively. TRE 801, FRE 801. In fact, this may be the proponent’s best response to a hearsay objection, i.e., that the nonverbal act was not intended as a verbal expression. The burden is on the opponent of the evidence to prove intent, and doubts are generally resolved in favor of admissibility.
There are two other ways for the proponent of the evidence to respond to the hearsay objection. The first is to argue that the nonverbal statement is not, by definition, hearsay. The three most common non-hearsay situations are:
- when it’s not offered for the truth of the matter asserted — TRE (801)(d);
- when it is a prior inconsistent statement — TRE 801(e)(1); and
- when it is made by a party-opponent — TRE 801(e)(2).
Even if the nonverbal communication does fit within the definition of hearsay, it still may be admissible as a hearsay exception. Rule 803 provides a laundry list of exceptions, but those most readily-applicable to nonverbal communication are:
- present sense impressions — TRE 803(1);
- excited utterances — TRE 803(2);
- statements of existing mental, emotional or physical condition — TRE 803(3);
- statements for the purpose of medical treatment — TRE 803(4); and
- statements against interest — TRE 803(24).
If a nonverbal communication falls within one of these, or any other, hearsay exceptions, then it is admissible into evidence as a hearsay exception.
From the opponent’s viewpoint, assuming the proponent has articulated one of these grounds to support his theory of admissibility, then the evidence may still be subject to a Rule 403 objection (probative value substantially outweighed by prejudice, confusion, etc.). However, Rule 403 should be the argument of last resort. After all, the proponent’s theory of admissibility should not necessarily be conceded, even if it appears facially meritorious.
Many proffers of otherwise hearsay statements on either of the two above-mentioned grounds — as non-hearsay or as a hearsay exception — simply cannot withstand close scrutiny. For example, an attorney shouldn’t be so quick to accept a proponent’s argument that the statement is offered, not for its truth, but to show motive, when motive isn’t a relevant issue in the case. Nor, for example, should it be conceded that a gesture made immediately after a traumatic event would fall within the excited utterance exception, absent any supporting evidence that the nonverbal gesture was a spontaneous reaction which was actually related to the event itself, two required elements to prove up an excited utterance exception.
For those who prefer a step-by-step approach to the process of offering and objecting to nonverbal communication:
- The nonverbal act or gesture is offered into evidence.
- An objection is lodged that the nonverbal communication was intended as a substitute for verbal expression and is, therefore, inadmissible hearsay. (Without a timely hearsay objection, the evidence is admissible with full probative value, pursuant to TRE 802.)
- The proponent of the evidence argues that the nonverbal statement: (a) was not made with an intention to substitute for verbal expression; (b) is, by definition, not hearsay; or (c) is admissible under one of the hearsay exceptions.
- The opponent challenges the proponent’s theory of admissibility, or makes a 403 objection, if applicable.
- Await the trial court’s ruling on the matter.
(Practice Note: As for Step 5, be careful to avoid any nonverbal communication on your own part. Neither the dramatic rolling of eyes when you lose nor high-fives when you win are tolerated in most courtrooms.)
– Bonnie Sudderth, Judge of the 352nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas