Hearsay Flashcards
"Pursuant to _________"
Simpson v. Rose (1992)
A verbal act is a statement offered to establish something of independent legal significance or
effect, rather than the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Statements which by their
existence impose legal responsibilities and grant legal rights upon the parties thereto are verbal
acts and are admissible as non-hearsay. For example, a contract executed by both parties would be
admissible to establish the terms thereof.
Farrant v. Westaway (1994)
Identification is a permissible non-hearsay purpose for a statement. Where a statement is not being
used for the truth of the matter asserted but is instead being used to identify a particular object, the
statement is being used for identification. For example, if a license plate is being used to identify
a particular car, the statement on the license plate is admissible as non-hearsay.
Knox v. Revoir (1995)
MRE 801(d)(2) governs statements “offered against an opposing party.” This rule does not require
the proponent of the evidence to offer the statement “against the party’s interests” in order to
qualify as an exemption to hearsay under MRE 801(d)(2)—that language is notably only found in
MRE 804(b)(3). If the drafters of the MRE had wanted 801(d)(2) to only apply if the statement
was “against the party’s interest,” they would have drafted the rule as such.
Zedell v. Hussain (1998)
MRE 803(4) does not apply to statements made by a defendant to a medical or psychological
expert retained as part of litigation. The reasoning behind MRE 803(4) is that declarants have an
incentive to be truthful to their doctors. However, for doctors retained as part of litigation, no such
incentive necessarily exists. Instead, a defendant may have an incentive to tell a doctor retained as
part of litigation whatever furthers the defendant’s position, regardless of the truth. And since the
reasoning behind MRE 803(4) does not apply, neither does the hearsay exception.
Dolly v. Ringo (2010)
Unlike most other evidentiary rules, MRE 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction. Under
that rule, the plaintiff may offer statements by the defendant, and the defendant may offer
statements by the plaintiff. But MRE 801(d)(2) does not permit the plaintiff to offer statements by
the plaintiff or the defendant to offer statements by the defendant, even if the opposing party has
already elicited out-of-court statements by the party during a preceding examination, subject to
MRE 106.
Seferian v. Morales (2010)
In a matter of first impression, this Court is tasked with deciding, for hearsay purposes in a Slayer
Statute proceeding, how to treat out-of-court statements made by third parties who conspired with
a defendant who facilitated the decedent’s death. On one hand, it makes sense for such statements
to be admitted for similar reasoning as MRE 801(d)(2)(E). On the other hand, the standard of proof
to admit a statement under MRE 801(d)(2)(E) or similar rules is by a preponderance of the
evidence—the same standard as a Slayer Statute proceeding generally—meaning statements
would only be admissible if the plaintiff has already met its burden. Ultimately, the Court cannot
come up with another standard of proof to admit such statements and therefore rules such
statements are not admissible under MRE 801(d)(2)(E). Such statements, however, may still be
admissible under MRE 803 and MRE 804 as well as for non-hearsay reasons.
America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2011)
The Court recognizes that practices differ in other jurisdictions. But in Midlands, the definition of
“hearsay” includes out-of-court statements by a witness who is on the stand or by another person
who has or will be testifying in a particular trial.
Kaplan v. Sikora (2013)
Pursuant to MRE 801(d)(2)(D), a statement that would otherwise be hearsay is admissible against
a party if: (1) the declarant is the party’s agent or employee; (2) the statement concerns a matter
that is within the scope of the agency or employment relationship; and (3) the statement was made
while the agency or employment relationship existed.
Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd. (2015)
The hearsay rule is only implicated where an out-of-court statement is being used for the truth of
the matter asserted. If it only matters whether the out-of-court statement was made (not whether it
was true), then the hearsay rule is not implicated.
McKanna v. Malburg (2019)
Although the Midlands Rules of Evidence (“MRE”) mirror the Federal Rules of Evidence, there
are differences. For example, the Federal Rules of Evidence updated its criteria for the ancient
document hearsay exception while the MRE did not. As always, the MRE governs.
Rogers v. Mars (2020)
n a Slayer Statute proceeding, the decedent is not considered either the plaintiff or the defendant.
Therefore, MRE 801(d)(2) does not apply to statements made by the decedent. Statements by the
decedent, however, may be otherwise admissible, such as under MRE 803 or MRE 804.
Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates (2021)
Labels that are placed on commercially sold products for purposes of identifying the product
and / or the contents thereof should not be excluded as hearsay. While Midlands has no general
residual hearsay exception, commercial labels are relied upon by the public and are subject to legal
requirements to ensure their accuracy and completeness. Thus, the reliability concerns that
underlie the hearsay rule are not present with labels that are placed on commercially sold products.
State v. B.F. De la Porta (2024)
Defendant offered statements of the investigating agent (“I know that you did this. You’re a
mastermind and this is exactly the type of job that you would pull . . . and now you’re gonna be
mine”) to show bias in the investigation. The State objected to hearsay, arguing the “truth value”—
that which the Defense wished the jury to infer from the statement—was that the Agent was out to
get the Defendant and that was the purpose for which the Defense was entering it.
Held: To be inadmissible as hearsay, an out-of-court statement must be (a) an assertion of fact
(b) offered to establish the truth of that asserted fact. No part of the rule against hearsay concerns
itself with the “truth value” of an out-of-court statement beyond the fact asserted in the statement.
The statement here contains several assertions of fact—that the investigating agent knew the
Defendant was involved; that the Defendant was a mastermind and that the heist was of the sort
the Defendant would commit; and that the Defendant would be his. Because the Defense disputed
these assertions, it cannot be reasonably argued that any part of the Agent’s statement was offered
to prove the truth of the matter(s) asserted. As such, the statement is definitionally not hearsay.
