Cited by

801(c); ¶ 7 (App. 2010).

10 STATE v. SNOW-INGRAM Decision of the Court ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (Text messages sent to defendant asking for drugs were not hearsay because “they were offered as circumstantial evidence that [defendant] had drugs for sale.

¶ 8 (App. 2010) (“[W]ords or conduct not intended as assertions are not hearsay even when offered as evidence of the declarant’s implicit belief of a fact.”).

¶12 “We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence over hearsay objections for abuse of discretion.” ¶ 5 (App. 2010).

We review a court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence over hearsay objections for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 5 (App. 2010), but review interpretation of the rules of evidence de novo, ¶ 5 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 11 (2016)).

Further, “words or conduct not intended as assertions are not hearsay even when offered as evidence of the declarant’s implicit belief of a fact.” ¶ 8 (App. 2010).

¶ 8 (App. 2010) (“Put simply, words or conduct not intended as assertions are not hearsay even when offered as evidence of the declarant’s implicit belief of a fact.”).

Generally, text messages on a defendant’s cell phone asking for drugs do not constitute hearsay if they are offered as “circumstantial evidence that [the defendant] had drugs for sale.” ¶ 9 (App. 2010).

¶ 5 (App. 2010); ¶ 14 (App. 2003).

¶ 5 (App. 2010) ( ¶ 41 (2003), ).

801(c)(2); ("Testimony not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted by an out-of-court declarant is not hearsay and does not violate the confrontation clause."); ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (statements were non-hearsay when not offered for the truth of the matter asserted).

But “words or conduct not intended as assertions are not hearsay even when offered as evidence of the declarant’s implicit belief of a fact.” ¶ 8 (App. 2010).

¶ 60, (reviewing the admission of photographs and videotape); ¶ 5, (reviewing the admission of text messages over a hearsay objection); (reviewing the preclusion of expert witness testimony); see also State v. Cañez, ¶ 61, (“Because

¶ 9 (App. 2010) (concluding text messages between prospective drug purchasers and defendant are circumstantial evidence of defendant’s possession of drugs for sale).

2 “[Wjords or conduct not intended as assertions are not hearsay even when offered as evidence of the declarant’s implicit belief of a fact.” ¶¶ 8, 9 , (text messages from “prospective buyers [who] wanted to purchase drugs” from defendant admissible “as circumstantial evidence that [defendant] had drags for sale.”).