Hearsay Flashcards
Definition of Hearsay
out of ct statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted
How to approach Hearsay Questions
- Ask—what is the evidence being offered to prove?
- Then apply rule
Admissibility of hearsay
Inadmissible unless exception/exclusion
Questions to Ask with Hearsay
- What was the statement made?
- What is being said?
- What is the statement being offered to prove?
Hearsay Terms
- Declarant- out of ct speaker
- Witness- comes ot ct to repeat hearsay
- Writing- used to prove an out of ct statement
Hearsay Rationale
No chance to cross examine at the time statement made
Statement
Can be spoken, written, or conduct intended as an assertion
(e.g. raising hand in class)
Conduct as hearsay
- Conduct intended to assert something, offered to prove that point
- E.g. raising hand to bartender is offered to prove person wanted a drink
- E.g. pointing in the direction of where the robber went when asked where he went.
- Conduct in response to a question is assertive. Answering the question asked by using conduct—statement.
Declarant
Hearsay declarant must be a person, not a machine or animal.
Definition of out of court
- Means declarant did not make this statement while on the stand testifying during the current proceeding.
- Where was the statement made?
- Even if the dec is on the stand or even if the statement was made during some other ct proceeding, you still have a hearsay issue.
Hearsay equation
- Out of court statement=offered to prove
- If these are the same, hearsay.
- But, if needed to prove someone is alive, any conduct is prove they’re alive. So, I’m alive statement isn’t to prove he’s alive, the conduct of saying anything at all is offered to prove he’s alive.
Common purposes hearsay is used that isnt for the truth of the matter asserted
- Impeachment (prior inconsistent statement offered to show dec not credible)
- Verbal acts
- Out of ct words that have independent legal significance. The words themselves create, alter, modify, or terminate legal rights of a person. Generally tortious or transactional languate.
- Ex:
- words of defamation
- words shoing transfer of property
- Alleged perjury statement
- words by adverse possesser showing adverse possession
- words of contract
- e.g. buyer says to seller i’ll buy your hourse for $500.00. Statement offered by buyer to show k for the sale of the horse. Not hearsay because kx are considered to be verbal acts
- D tells P you can borrow my car, but my brakes are slow offered to show P was on notice of brakes is NOT hearsay. Not offered to prove the brakes themselves were shot
Circumstantial evidence/state of mind
- E.g. a man’s statement that he’s napoleon Bonaparte. Offered to prove he’s not competent to write a will.
- Not hearsay
out of court statements that are not hearsay
- Certain out of ct statements are not hearsay, but not exceptions either. They’re just not hearsay even tho they meet definition
- These statements will be able to come in for the truth of the matter asserted.
Types of out of court statements that are not hearsay
C3PO.
- Co-Conspirator Statements
- Prior inconsistent statements
- Prior consistent statements
- Prior statement of identification
- Opposing party statement
For the three Ps, declarant must testify and be subject to cross examination
C:Co-Conspirator Statements
- Trial ct must find by PPOE that:
- Conspiracy existed
- Declarant member of the conspiracy
- Offerred against party opponenent who was a member of the conspiracy
- Statement must be made in the course of the conspirancy and in furtherance of the conspiracy
Other conspiracy rules
- Contents of statement are admissible ro ptove conspiracy, but need some other indepndent evidence a conspiracy existed.
- Judge can first let in statement of co-conspirator, subject to later independent proof of conspiracy
- Statement is admissible even if conspiracy not charged.
- Co-conspirator does not need to be around when admitted statements were being made
- Statement is admissible in civil and criminal cases.
- agreeing to break into the office is a conspiracy
- Buying blueprints and getting security schedule is independent evidence.
Rules applicable to all 3 Ps
- Declarant must be there testifying
- Must be subject to cross on facts underlying the statement or about making the statement itself
P1: Prior inconsistent statements
- Can be by contradiction or omission (leaving something out)
- Given under oath at a prior proceeding.
- Admissible for TOMA and to impeach as well.
- But if for TOMA, must be under oath.
P2: Prior consistent statements
- General rule: cannot be used for any purpose, rehabilitative or substantive
- Exceptions:
- To rebut a charge of fabrication based on improper motive
- E.g. counsel bribes a witness after a statement, wit gives testimony that is the same. Can use first statement to rebut.
- When witness impeached on other non-character ground (e.g. faulty memory and a prior consistent statement can be used to rehab.
- Can be something as simple as you don’t remember do you?
- Prior consistent statement need not be sworn
- If exception applies, can now be offered substantively as well
- To rebut a charge of fabrication based on improper motive
- Exceptions:
Rule for Rebutting a charge of improper motive
- Triggering event
- Cross-examination raises express or implied chare against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive
- Timing requirement
- Prior consistent statement must have been made before the alleged undue influence
Prior Statements-VA Distinction
In VA, there is no hearsay exclusion or exception for
(1) prior inconsistent statements or
(2) prior consistent statements.
So only admissible for impeachment or rehab, not substantively unless another exception applies.
P3: Prior statement of identification
- Prior identification is not hearsay, as long as declarant:
- Testifies, and
- Is subject to cross-examination abour the statement
Prior statement of identification rules
- Declarant must testify. If declarant does not testify or refuses to answer questions on cross, 3rd party witness cannot testify about a statement of ID.
- If declarant does testify at trial and cannot recall, makes wrong ID or recants prior statement ( flipper witness ), 3rd party witness can testify as to a prior statement of identification.
Prior statement of identification admissibility
Admissible even if the witness identifies the wrong person at trial as long as the witness testified and was subject to cross.