MAHLANDT VS WILD CANID SURVIVAL & RESEARCH CENTER 588 F.

2D 626 1978 QUICK SUMMARY: This case is about a four year old boy who was tragically mauled by Sophie, a bitch wolf. A 4 year old child was walking to his neighbors house to get his brother. A neighbor heard screams, looked out his window, and saw that the boy was in an enclosure in which Mr. Poos, a neighbor, kept a wolf that he used in his educational trips to neighborhood schools, and that the head of the wolf was near the child. Nobody saw the wolf bite the child. The admissibility of three statements made by Mr. Poos (the keeper of the wolf) are put into question. DOCTRINES: Admissions are not hearsay. Poos was making his own statement when he said Sophie bit a child, therefore it is an admission. Had he said, "I heard that the wolf bit somebody," then that would be hearsay, not an admission. ~ The statement is admissible against the corporation but not against Mr. Poos as he was not present in the meeting. According to Rule 801(d)(2)(d), the statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship. In this case, the statements appearing in the minutes were made by Mr. Poos when he was an agent or servant of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc., and they concerned a matter within the scope of his agency, or employment, i.e., his custody of Sophie, and were made during the existence of that relationship. ~ It is not necessary that the declarant have personal knowledge of the things about which he makes statements, as it is up to the jury to give appropriate weight to those statements. This goes to weight, not admissibility.

where the killing is committed through treachery premeditation. The proof of such character may only be allowed in homicide cases to show "that it has produced a reasonable belief of imminent danger in the mind of the accused and a justifiable conviction that a prompt defensive action was necessary." This rule does not apply to cases of murder.

PEOPLE VS SOLIMAN GR NO L-9723 JUNE 28, 1957 QUICK SUMMARY: Soliman and friends were charged with murder of Mr. Basa. They claimed self-defense and they tried to introduce in evidence the violent and quarrelsome character of Mr. Basa. The Court disallowed it because the introduction of character evidence is not allowed in cases of murder (w/ treachery and premeditation). DOCTRINE: While good or bad character may be availed of as an aid to determine the probability or improbability of the commission of an offense, such is not necessary in crime of murder