Martin v. Meyer (2016) & How the Hearsay Rule Impacts Testimony

In a few of our more recent blogs, we’ve tried to stress the importance of observing procedural rules in all phases of the divorce process. As we’ve discussed, carefully following all procedural rules is of the highest importance, because any failing along these lines can lead to an undesirable outcome. If, for instance, you are just a single day late in filing a particular response, you can end up losing the type of custody you want to have with your children. Or, you can end up with a property division outcome which isn’t optimal for you. The bottom line is that, in the divorce process, observing every procedural rule is critical.

The hearsay rule is just one piece of procedure which must be observed during divorce trials. In the case of Martin v. Meyer (2016), the incorrect interpretation of this rule led to an undesired outcome for the ex-wife who sought custody modification. Let’s look at the specifics of this case closely.

Overview of the Case

The couple in this case were married in 1999. Between 2004 and 2009, the couple had four children. In 2012, however, the wife discovered that the husband had been engaging in extramarital affairs. The husband had used online dating websites to initiate these affairs, and the affairs had involved sadomasochistic sexual behavior. The wife subsequently filed for divorced, and initially she sought to limit the husband’s contact with the children to supervised visitation. The wife retained the services of a clinical psychologist in order to substantiate her contention that supervised visitation was necessary. But, the husband contested this request, and ultimately the former couple agreed to share joint physical custody of the children.

Later, another medical expert claimed to have noticed troubling sexual behaviors in the oldest child. Consequently, the ex-wife sought to alter the custody arrangement, and the issue went to trial. At the trial court, the medical expert was allowed to testify, and his testimony was used to support the ex-wife’s motion. However, the ex-wife also testified, and she attempted to use hearsay as evidence in support of her position. She claimed that she heard one of the children use the word “torture” in a manner which may have indicated that the father had tortured the children. The trial court disallowed the mother’s use of this hearsay evidence. The trial court concluded that the father was a loving and attentive parent, and ruled against the mother. The mother appealed this decision.

Outcome & Discussion

On appeal, one of the key issues was whether the trial court erred in ruling that the mother’s hearsay evidence was inadmissible. The mother claimed that the hearsay evidence was not inadmissible because it was pertinent to the issue at hand. In some cases, hearsay evidence may be admitted; typically, this happens when the hearsay evidence is sufficiently relevant to whatever issues be under consideration. The appellate division rejected the mother’s argument and determined that the hearsay evidence was not sufficiently relevant to the issues, because the issue was not whether the father had tortured the children, but whether the father had possibly subjected the children to sadomasochistic sexual materials. The appellate division ultimately upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like additional resources, or if you have a case which needs assistance, reach out to one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.