## Facts

- Three-year-old Calen DiRubbo died from internal injuries on June 15, 2002, while under adult supervision that, for part of the medically relevant period, included Erik Stoddard as the only adult present with the children.
- The medical examiner concluded Calen died from multiple blunt force injuries, including a severed bowel, and estimated the fatal injury occurred within hours of death.
- At trial, the State presented testimony from Jennifer Pritchett that, after Calen’s death, her 18-month-old daughter Jasmine (who had been present around the relevant time) asked, “Is Erik going to get me?”
- The State offered Jasmine’s question as circumstantial proof that Jasmine witnessed Stoddard assault Calen.
- Over defense objection, the trial court admitted the question as a nonassertive utterance (non-hearsay) and allowed related testimony about changes in Jasmine’s behavior.
- A jury convicted Stoddard of second-degree murder and child abuse resulting in death; he received two consecutive 30-year sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether an out-of-court question by a non-testifying 18-month-old, offered to prove the truth of an implied proposition that the defendant committed the crime, is hearsay under Maryland law.
2. If the evidence was improperly admitted, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Jasmine’s question was hearsay when offered to prove the implied assertion that she witnessed Stoddard commit the assault causing Calen’s death.
- The court rejected the view that lack of an intent to assert necessarily removes an utterance from hearsay analysis where probative force depends on the declarant’s belief in an implied fact.
- No applicable hearsay exception justified admission.
- The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the State relied on the question to support identity and the evidence was not otherwise overwhelming.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court utterance may constitute a “statement” for hearsay purposes when its probative value depends on the truth of an implied assertion communicated by the declarant.
- Implied assertions in spoken words can be hearsay under Maryland law, even if the declarant did not consciously intend to assert the implied proposition.
- Evidence characterized as showing “state of mind” is hearsay when, as used, it functions to prove a contested factual proposition about a defendant’s conduct.
- Admission of hearsay bearing on identity and the State’s central theory is reversible unless the reviewing court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court required a new trial because the prosecution used an 18-month-old’s out-of-court question as proof of an implied eyewitness accusation, making it inadmissible hearsay without an exception, and the improper admission likely affected the verdict.


Stoddard v. State, 389 Md. 681, 887 A.2d 564 (2005)