|
P0176 In the hearing on a motion for summary judgment in an action for retaliatory termination, a supervisor's out-of-court threat to get revenge was not hearsay if offered to establish the declarant's state of mind rather than the truth of her statement; since the supervisor was the company agent who instituted an investigation that led to the employee's termination, the threat was admissible as an admission of a party; because in a deposition she had denied making the statement, it was also admissible as a prior inconsistent statement; the statement of a witness that he heard the supervisor make that statement, which he had denied in a prior deposition, was also admissible as a prior inconsistent statement; while prior inconsistent statements are not admissible at trial unless the declarant is given an opportunity to explain them, no such requirement exists for their admission at other stages of a proceeding.CitationCOLAROSSI v COTY (Coincidental Termination) 97 CA4 1142 [See: EvC 1200, 1220, 1235, 770; Morgan v Regents 88 CA4 52, T/AT 5/01; People v Ortiz 38 CA4 377]
|
|
