## Facts

- El Paso police received a confidential informant tip that Moore and others possessed heroin at “Moore’s apartment.”
- Police obtained a search warrant, entered the apartment, and found Moore lying face down near a living-room coffee table; a woman was also present on a couch.
- Officers seized bags containing heroin found on and beneath the coffee table, along with narcotics paraphernalia.
- At a consolidated suppression-and-merits bench proceeding, the prosecution presented no admissible evidence linking Moore to possession of the heroin beyond his proximity to the drugs at the time of the search.
- A police officer testified he found no indications of ownership of the apartment.
- In closing, the prosecutor emphasized the informant’s out-of-court statement that Moore resided in the apartment and possessed heroin.
- The trial judge found Moore guilty of possessing heroin with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), expressly relying on the informant’s statement to find Moore was the apartment’s tenant and thus in possession of the contraband.
- Defense counsel objected to the court’s reliance on the hearsay, but the judge did not retract the finding.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a bench trial, the court erred by relying on an informant’s out-of-court hearsay statements as substantive evidence of guilt.
2. If error occurred, whether the wrongful admission and reliance were harmless, and if not, whether Moore waived his objection.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held it was error for the trial judge to rely on wrongfully admitted hearsay evidence in finding Moore guilty.
- The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance and remanded for the court of appeals to determine whether the error was harmless and, if not, whether Moore waived objection.

## Legal Principles

- An informant’s out-of-court declaration offered to prove a defendant’s residence or control over premises (and thus constructive possession) is hearsay and inadmissible as proof of guilt.
- Admission and use of such hearsay deprive the defendant of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant on meaning and factual basis, implicating confrontation rights.
- Evidentiary error in a bench trial does not automatically require reversal; appellate courts must assess harmless error, and may consider waiver of objections.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the bench-trial conviction was infected by the trial judge’s reliance on inadmissible informant hearsay to establish Moore’s connection to the apartment and the drugs, and it sent the case back for determinations on harmless error and waiver.


Moore v. United States, 429 U.S. 20 (1976)