## Facts

- Richard Anthony Cain escaped from federal prison in Texarkana, Texas, on August 21, 1977.
- The next morning, a pickup truck was reported missing from a residence about one mile from the prison.
- A Louisiana state trooper located the pickup abandoned on a bridge in Louisiana, with clothing inside.
- Over CB radio, an unidentified caller reported seeing two white, shirtless males walking away from the truck and attempting to hitchhike east.
- Additional CB reports placed two shirtless white males several miles east of the truck’s location.
- A deputy sheriff in the reported area encountered two shirtless white males, who were later identified as Cain and another escapee.
- Cain was detained and taken to the parish jail; authorities later confirmed both the men’s escape status and that the pickup was stolen.
- At trial for interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle under 18 U.S.C. § 2312, the trooper testified to the unidentified CB caller’s report over a hearsay objection; the district court admitted it as a present sense impression under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1).
- The jury convicted Cain; the trooper’s hearsay testimony was the only direct evidence linking Cain to the stolen pickup.

## Issues

1. Whether the government was estopped from prosecuting the Dyer Act charge based on an alleged plea agreement in another matter.
2. Whether Cain’s detention and arrest lacked probable cause, requiring suppression of resulting evidence.
3. Whether the trooper’s testimony repeating an unidentified CB caller’s statement was admissible under Rule 803(1) as a present sense impression, and if not, whether its admission was prejudicial.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit rejected Cain’s plea-bargain estoppel claim.
- The Fifth Circuit rejected Cain’s argument that his detention and arrest lacked probable cause.
- The Fifth Circuit held the trial court erred in admitting the unidentified CB caller’s statement under Rule 803(1).
- The court found the error was not harmless because the statement was the only direct evidence tying Cain to the stolen vehicle.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 803(1) requires a showing that a statement describing an event was made while the declarant perceived it or immediately thereafter; insufficient proof of timing defeats the exception.
- When the declarant is unidentified, courts must closely examine indicia of reliability before admitting the statement under Rule 803(1), given the lack of cross-examination and inability to assess perception and sincerity.
- Erroneous admission of hearsay is reversible error when the hearsay supplies the only direct proof of an essential link in the prosecution’s case and likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reversed Cain’s Dyer Act conviction because the trial court admitted, as a present sense impression, an unidentified CB caller’s statement without adequate proof of contemporaneity and reliability; since that hearsay was the only direct evidence connecting Cain to the stolen truck, the error was prejudicial and required reversal.


United States v. Cain, 587 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1979)