## Facts

- During a street dispute, Officer Brent Darden encountered a group arguing; Benjamin Campbell said, “I’m going to shoot you.”
- As the group began to disperse, an unidentified woman told Darden that Harold Cannon had a gun.
- Darden pursued and arrested Cannon.
- Cannon was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- At trial, defense counsel questioned why Darden chased Cannon rather than Campbell, who had made the verbal threat.
- In response, the prosecution elicited Darden’s testimony recounting the unidentified woman’s statement that Cannon had a gun, over hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections.
- The jury convicted Cannon.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred under the hearsay rules by admitting an unidentified woman’s out-of-court statement that Cannon had a gun, including whether the officer should have been limited to testifying that he acted on “information received.”
2. Whether admission of the unidentified woman’s statement violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because the declarant was unidentified and unavailable for cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court rejected Cannon’s hearsay challenge to the admission of the unidentified woman’s statement.
- The court rejected Cannon’s Confrontation Clause challenge to the admission of the statement.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court statement offered to explain its effect on a listener (such as why an officer acted) may be admissible as non-hearsay when not offered for its truth.
- When the defense attacks the logic or motivation of police conduct, the prosecution may rebut that implication with limited evidence explaining the officer’s actions, subject to evidentiary limits on prejudicial “back-door” accusations.
- The Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial hearsay offered for its truth; non-testimonial on-scene statements made during an unfolding incident, or statements admitted for a non-hearsay purpose, generally do not trigger a Sixth Amendment violation.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed Cannon’s felon-in-possession conviction, holding that the officer’s testimony recounting an unidentified woman’s accusation was properly admitted in context to explain the officer’s pursuit decision and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.


United States v. Cannon, 220 F. App’x 104 (3d Cir. 2007)