## Facts

- Police were dispatched to a residence in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, in response to an emergency and observed an injured woman being transported by ambulance.
- Officers entered the residence and encountered Joe Wilson and a woman who stated she lived there and wanted Wilson to leave.
- Wilson did not deny the woman’s claim of occupancy and did not assert any right to remain on the premises.
- Despite police warning that he would be arrested for criminal trespass if he refused to leave, Wilson insisted he was not leaving.
- Wilson was arrested and charged with criminal trespass.
- At trial, the key evidence tying Wilson to the offense was the officers’ testimony recounting the woman’s statements and Wilson’s response (silence as to her occupancy claim and refusal to leave).

## Issues

1. Whether the woman’s statements in Wilson’s presence were admissible through the officers as non-hearsay adoptive admissions by Wilson.
2. Whether admitting the woman’s out-of-court statements, without her testimony, violated Wilson’s confrontation rights under the federal and state constitutions.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the woman’s statements were admissible as Wilson’s adoptive admissions because he heard them, had the ability and occasion to deny them, and instead refused to leave while not disputing her asserted occupancy.
- The court held admission of the statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the probative value lay in Wilson’s own conduct (including silence and refusal), and Wilson could cross-examine the officers who witnessed the exchange.
- The conviction and fine were upheld.

## Legal Principles

- A statement made in a defendant’s presence may be treated as an adoptive admission when the defendant hears and understands it, has relevant knowledge, can respond, and a reasonable person would deny it if untrue.
- Adoptive admissions are admissions of a party-opponent and are not excluded as hearsay.
- Introducing a defendant’s adoptive admission through third-party witnesses generally does not violate confrontation rights when the evidentiary force derives from the defendant’s reaction rather than the absent declarant’s credibility.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Wilson’s criminal trespass conviction, ruling that the occupant’s statements were admissible as Wilson’s adoptive admissions based on his failure to dispute her occupancy claim and his refusal to leave, and that admission of the officers’ testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause.


Wilson v. City of Pine Bluff, 641 S.W.2d 33 (Ark. Ct. App. 1982)