## Facts

- Darlene M. Vincelette, a guest at the Billings Sheraton Hotel, fell around midnight on March 19–20, 1989 while entering the hotel through a carpeted vestibule between outer and inner doors, injuring her back.
- Vincelette alleged the fall was caused by a defect in the entryway carpeting or negligent maintenance.
- The hotel denied any defect and argued Vincelette’s intoxication caused the fall.
- At trial, a hotel maintenance engineer testified he received a radio call about a woman who had fallen; on cross-examination he was permitted to add that the caller said the woman was “drunk.”
- The radio caller’s identity was not established and the caller did not testify.
- Vincelette objected and moved to strike the “drunk” statement as hearsay; the trial court denied the motion, the statement was repeated, and defense counsel emphasized it in closing.
- The trial court excluded photographs of the entryway taken about seven years after the accident that Vincelette offered as demonstrative aids to illustrate witness testimony about the entryway and carpeting.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony repeating an out-of-court statement by an unidentified declarant that Vincelette was “drunk.”
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding photographs offered as demonstrative evidence to illustrate testimony about the entryway and carpet.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Vincelette’s motion to compel discovery.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the hotel and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the unidentified caller’s “drunk” statement as hearsay, and the error was prejudicial because intoxication was a contested, outcome-determinative fact and the statement was used substantively.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the photographs offered as demonstrative evidence; differences due to the passage of time generally affect weight rather than admissibility when a proper foundation is laid.
- The court addressed the discovery dispute but reversed primarily due to the evidentiary errors.

## Legal Principles

- Out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible hearsay unless a recognized exception applies.
- Statements attributed to an unidentified declarant raise heightened reliability concerns because the opposing party cannot test the declarant’s perception, memory, sincerity, and narration through cross-examination.
- A party may not avoid the hearsay rule by claiming a statement is offered only for its effect on the listener when its trial use shows it was offered for its truth.
- Photographs offered as demonstrative aids to illustrate testimony are admissible with a foundation that they fairly and accurately depict relevant features; a time gap does not automatically bar admission, and dissimilarities commonly go to weight.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the jury heard prejudicial hearsay accusing the plaintiff of intoxication from an unidentified source and was denied demonstrative photographs that could assist in understanding the entryway conditions central to the negligence claim.


Vincelette v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 968 P.2d 275 (Mont. 1998)