## Facts

- David LaFlamme owned a trailer that was later intentionally burned.
- Brett Bodman became upset with LaFlamme because Bodman believed LaFlamme was cooperating with law enforcement to testify against Bodman.
- Shortly thereafter, LaFlamme’s trailer was burned down; LaFlamme did not see who started the fire.
- Justin Long was investigated and charged based on statements made to law-enforcement officers and circumstantial physical evidence.
- At trial, Long sought to present evidence pointing to Bodman as the arsonist.
- Specifically, Long attempted to have LaFlamme testify that LaFlamme “knew” Bodman burned the trailer, based on LaFlamme’s account that Bodman admitted it to him after the fire.
- The trial court excluded that testimony, reasoning that LaFlamme lacked personal knowledge of who actually set the fire and that his “knowledge” rested only on Bodman’s out-of-court statement.
- The trial court treated the proffer as, at most, proof that Bodman made a statement—an out-of-court assertion offered for its truth—and therefore inadmissible hearsay.
- Long was convicted (including arson and conspiracy to commit arson) and appealed, arguing the exclusion prevented him from presenting exculpatory evidence identifying another perpetrator.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err in excluding LaFlamme’s testimony that Bodman burned the trailer when LaFlamme did not witness the arson and his belief was based solely on Bodman’s alleged out-of-court admission (personal-knowledge and hearsay rules)?
2. Did excluding that testimony violate Long’s right to present a defense by keeping from the jury evidence that a third party committed the crime?

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The court held the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding LaFlamme’s proposed testimony because LaFlamme lacked personal knowledge of who started the fire under Maine Rule of Evidence 602.
- The court further agreed that the testimony, as offered, depended on Bodman’s out-of-court statement to prove Bodman committed the arson and was therefore hearsay not shown to fall within an exception.
- The court rejected Long’s claim that the exclusion required reversal, concluding that applying ordinary evidence rules to bar inadmissible hearsay did not amount to a denial of the right to present a defense.

## Legal Principles

- A witness may testify only from personal knowledge; a belief about “who did it” cannot be admitted when the witness did not observe the event and knows the identity only from what someone else said. (M.R. Evid. 602)
- An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts is hearsay and is inadmissible unless a recognized exception applies.
- A defendant may offer third-party-culpability evidence, but that evidence must still satisfy foundational requirements (including personal knowledge) and the hearsay rules.
- Appellate review of trial-court evidentiary rulings is deferential; exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The right to present a defense does not require admission of evidence that is excluded by generally applicable evidentiary rules when those rules are applied in a neutral way.

## Conclusion

State v. Long holds that a victim could not testify that a third party committed arson when the victim did not witness the crime and his asserted “knowledge” came only from the third party’s alleged out-of-court confession; because the proffer lacked personal knowledge and amounted to hearsay without an established exception, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Long’s arson-related convictions and found no violation of his right to present a defense.


State v. Long, 656 A.2d 1228 (1995)