## Facts

- Stephanie Lynn Bass was prosecuted for crimes arising from a multi-vehicle collision in Phoenix, Arizona.
- Bass was driving a Cadillac El Dorado westbound on Baseline Road near 24th Street at speeds the State claimed were above the limit.
- Meg Farrell was driving in the left westbound lane and began to change lanes from left to right in front of Bass; Farrell’s right wheel crossed into Bass’s lane.
- Bass swerved right and the Cadillac rode the curb; Bass later claimed a front-seat passenger grabbed the steering wheel and jerked it left.
- Bass lost control, and the Cadillac spun into oncoming eastbound traffic, causing a severe chain collision.
- The Cadillac struck multiple vehicles; one driver, David Newell, was killed, and several others were injured, including Gary Whipp and occupants of other cars involved in the crash.
- The State charged Bass with offenses tied to reckless driving, including manslaughter (for Newell’s death), child abuse (based on endangerment of Bass’s young daughter), aggravated assault (for injuries to certain victims), and multiple counts of endangerment.
- At trial, the court allowed Farrell (who was involved in the collision) to testify about statements allegedly made by three unidentified bystanders who arrived after the crash.
- According to Farrell, the bystanders said Bass had earlier passed them at a high rate of speed and had been weaving in and out of traffic; the bystanders did not see the crash itself.
- The bystanders left before investigators could identify or interview them, and they did not testify.
- Bass objected that Farrell’s testimony about the bystanders’ statements was inadmissible hearsay and raised confrontation concerns.
- Bass was convicted, and the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed whether admitting the bystanders’ statements required relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting, through Farrell, out-of-court statements by unidentified bystanders that Bass had been speeding and weaving, offered to prove the truth of those assertions.
2. Whether the statements fit any hearsay exception, including the state-of-mind exception, given that the statements described past observations about Bass’s driving.
3. If admitting the statements was error, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the other evidence of reckless driving.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that the bystanders’ statements, as recounted by Farrell, were hearsay when offered to prove Bass had been speeding and weaving.
- The Court rejected admission of the statements under a state-of-mind theory because the statements were used to prove what Bass did earlier, not to show the declarants’ then-existing mental or emotional condition.
- The Court concluded that admitting the statements was error and implicated confrontation concerns because the declarants were unidentified and not subject to cross-examination.
- The Court nevertheless held the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the record contained substantial independent evidence of Bass’s driving and the circumstances of the collision, making the bystander statements cumulative rather than outcome-determinative.
- The Court affirmed Bass’s convictions and sentences.

## Legal Principles

- Out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and are inadmissible unless a recognized exception applies.
- The state-of-mind exception (Rule 803(3)) permits evidence of a declarant’s then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition, but it generally does not allow a declarant’s statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed.
- When the State offers accusatory statements from unidentified, absent declarants, the defendant’s inability to cross-examine raises confrontation problems, and courts must assess whether admission is reversible error.
- Even when hearsay is admitted improperly, a conviction may stand if the reviewing court concludes the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the full trial record.

## Conclusion

In Arizona v. Bass, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that testimony relaying anonymous bystanders’ claims that Bass had been speeding and weaving was inadmissible hearsay and was not saved by the state-of-mind exception, but the Court affirmed because the error was harmless given the other evidence supporting the jury’s finding of reckless driving.


Arizona v. Bass, 12 P.3d 796 (2000)