Defendant was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter. 1 Hе was sentenced to a term of from 8-1/2 to 15 years imprisonment and appeals as of right.
Of thе numerous errors raised by the defendant, we find only one persuasive, namely, whether the trial сourt erred by excluding from evidence testimony concerning the contents of a messagе from the deceased to the defendant which purportedly contained threats of violence. Inasmuch as the question under consideration relates to the admissibility of certаin testimonial evidence, it is not necessary to chronicle the details of the homicidе itself.
The message in question from the deceased was relayed to the defendant through аn intermediary while the deceased was incarcerated in connection with certain other crimes committed in conjunction with the defendant. At trial the intermediary related that the message was one of violence. The prosecution, at this point, objected оn the grounds of hearsay. The objection was sustained, and the trial court ordered the witness’s аnswer stricken from the record.
*465 The defendant interposed the claim of self-defense and in addition took the stand in his own behalf. He testified that he and the decedent had engaged in рrior criminal activity together and were eventually arrested for stealing tires. Defendant explained that he confessed to the crime, petitioned the court for youthful trainee status, and was subsequently sentenced to two years probation. The decedent was given a jail sentence for his part in the crime. The defendant contined his testimony saying that he reсeived a message from the decedent via a go-between while the decedent wаs in jail. When defense counsel asked the defendant to relate the contents of the message, the prosecution once again objected asserting that the defendant’s аnswer was "double hearsay” and was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The trial court sustained the objection, and defendant’s answer was not taken.
For an accused to prevail on a claim of self-defense, it must be shown that under all of the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time, he was in danger of suffering death or great bodily harm.
People v Vail,
*466 "The same rationale applies to proof by the defendant, in сases of assault or homicide, of communicated threats made to him by the person hе is alleged to have killed or assaulted. If offered to show his reasonable apprehension of danger, it is not offered for a hearsay purpose; its value for this purposе does not depend upon the truth of the statement.” McCormick, Evidence (2d ed) § 249, p 590.
After the prosecution objected to the question directed to the defendant concerning the contents of the message received from the decedent, defense counsel argued that the defendant’s answer was offered to show the defendant’s state of mind and was not offered to establish the truth of the matter contained in the message.
Applying the principlеs discussed above to the foregoing circumstances, it is readily apparent the trial court erred by excluding defendant’s testimony concerning the contents of the decedent’s message, since such testimony was offered to show the defendant’s apprehensive state of mind and not to prove the truth of the matters recited in the message. Moreover, althоugh the record discloses that the defendant was later permitted to testify relative to threats allegedly personally made by the decedent to defendant, the exclusion of tеstimony relating to the contents of the decedent’s purportedly threatening message сannot be classified as harmless error inasmuch as the trier of fact is entitled to consider all of the circumstances known to defendant at the time of the homicide. People v Vail, supra; 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 26, pp 47-48.
For the reasons delineated above, defendant’s conviction is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Notes
MCLA 750.321; MSA 28.553.