## Facts

- Coren Estes sued his employer, Carpenter Co., and coworkers Jim Guthrie, Johnny Meguiar, and Doug Bullock, alleging he was assaulted multiple times in connection with his workplace.
- Estes claimed that coworker Doug Bullock arranged or directed the assaults, but Estes could not identify the assailant(s) by name.
- To connect Bullock to the attacks, Estes offered two statements allegedly made by an unknown assailant during separate assaults:
  - In one attack, the assailant allegedly said, “Go tell Dougie we have got him.”
  - In a later attack, the assailant allegedly said, “Mr. Estes, Doug Bullock has sent you a Christmas present,” and then forced Estes to ingest doxylamine (an over-the-counter sleep aid).
- Estes offered these statements as proof that Bullock was behind the assaults.
- The trial court ruled that both statements were inadmissible hearsay.
- With the statements excluded, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants because Estes lacked admissible evidence tying Bullock (or any defendant) to the unidentified attacker(s).
- Estes appealed the evidentiary ruling and the resulting judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding the unidentified assailant’s statements as hearsay when Estes offered them to prove Bullock orchestrated the assaults.
2. Whether the statements were admissible under any Kentucky Rules of Evidence theory, including a co-conspirator/joint venture theory (KRE 801A(b)(5)) or an exception such as present sense impression or excited utterance (KRE 803).
3. Whether, once the statements were excluded, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the absence of admissible evidence linking any defendant to the assaults.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court agreed the statements were out-of-court assertions offered for their truth: that Bullock directed the attacks.
- The court held Estes did not lay an adequate foundation to admit the statements under a co-conspirator or similar theory because there was no independent, nonhearsay evidence identifying the speaker or showing the speaker acted with Bullock.
- The court rejected reliance on other hearsay exceptions on this record; the statements functioned as accusations assigning responsibility to Bullock, and their reliability was not established through a supported exception.
- Because the excluded statements were the only evidence offered to connect Bullock (and thus the other defendants) to the assaults, the resulting judgment for defendants was proper and was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless an exclusion or exception applies.
- A statement offered to prove that a named person ordered or sponsored an attack is hearsay when the proponent offers it for that substantive link.
- To admit a statement as a co-conspirator’s statement (KRE 801A(b)(5)), the proponent must present evidence, apart from the statement itself, that:
  - a conspiracy or joint plan existed,
  - both the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered were members, and
  - the statement was made during and in furtherance of the plan.
- The proponent may not prove the required relationship solely by the hearsay statement that depends on that relationship for admissibility.
- Exceptions such as present sense impression and excited utterance require a showing that the statement fits the rule’s limits and carries the reliability that justifies admission; bare attribution of blame to a third party, without a supported basis of knowledge or other foundation, will not satisfy those requirements.
- Trial-court evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and judgment as a matter of law is appropriate when the nonmoving party lacks admissible evidence creating a triable link between defendants and the alleged wrongdoing.

## Conclusion

In *Estes v. Carpenter Co.*, the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the exclusion of two statements allegedly made by an unidentified assailant naming “Dougie” and “Doug Bullock” during workplace-related assaults because the statements were offered to prove Bullock’s involvement and no admissible foundation placed the unknown declarant in a conspiracy, agency, or other relationship with Bullock that would permit admission. Without those statements, Estes had no admissible evidence connecting any defendant to the assaults, so the trial court’s judgment for the defendants was affirmed.


Estes v. Carpenter Co., 2004 WL 2633544 (2004)