Is this hearsay? Flashcards
Hearsay? The testimony of a witness that she immediately hailed a passing police cruiser, pointed to a fleeing car, and said, “That’s the robber!” - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the driver of the fleeing car robbed the store.
Hearsay. It’s an out of court statement offered for the truth. But it may be admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(C), identifying a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
Hearsay? The testimony of a police officer that she was hailed by the owner of the convenience store, who pointed frantically but speechlessly at a fleeing car - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the driver of the fleeing car robbed the store.
Hearsay. Nonverbal conduct qualifies as a statement. But the evidence may be admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(C), if the owner testifies, or under Rule 803(2).
hearsay? The testimony of a police officer that when she approached the vicinity of the Quik-Stop shortly after the robbery, she saw the owner of the store running after another man - if offered by the prosecutor to prove that the owner believed the other man robbed the store.
Not hearsay. The owner, in giving chase, was not intending to communicate anything to anyone.
hearsay? The testimony of the store owner that the robber fled in a car with a license plate bearing the word “Wyoming” at the top - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the robber lived in Wyoming.
Not hearsay. Proof is only that car was registered in Wyoming.
hearsay? The prosecutor’s display of a videotape of the robbery taken by an automatic surveillance camera - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the identity of the robber and his actions at the time.
Not hearsay. This is not an out of court statement of a person; it’s only a video.
hearsay? The prosecutor’s display of a videotape of a reenactment of the robbery made shortly before the trial, in which the store-owner recreates his actions at the time of the robbery - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the store-owner’s actions at the time of the robbery.
Hearsay. The owner’s reenactment is an assertion about what he did at the time of the robbery.
hearsay? The store-owner’s testimony that the defendant said, “I’ve got a gun, and I’m not afraid to use it” - if offered by the prosecutor to prove that the defendant threatened physical violence.
Not hearsay. The defendant’s words are a verbal act – i.e., a threat.
hearsay? The store-owner’s testimony that he called his wife about a minute after the robber fled the store and told her the store had been robbed, together with his wife’s testimony that the store owner called a few minutes after ten and told her the store had been robbed - if offered by the prosecutor to prove that the robber fled the store at about ten o’clock
Not hearsay. The store owner is subject to cross about the time, as is his wife. They did not assert out of court anything about the time.
hearsay? A police officer’s testimony that the store owner told her after the robbery, “I never rang up a single sale all night” - if offered by the prosecutor to prove that there were probably no customers in the store at the time of the robbery.
Hearsay. This is an indirect assertion that the owner said he was alone.
hearsay? The testimony of an Oakdale Police switchboard operator that he received no other reports of robberies that night - if offered by the prosecutor to prove there were no other robberies in Oakdale that night.
Not hearsay. The silent citizens were not communicating anything.
hearsay? The arresting officer’s testimony that when she approached the defendant in downtown Oakdale several hours after the robbery, he began to stutter and hyperventilate - if offered by the prosecutor to prove that the officer’s approach made the defendant nervous.
Not hearsay. The defendant’s stuttering and hyperventilating were not intended to communicate that he was nervous.
hearsay? The testimony of a police officer that when she searched the defendant after his arrest, she found a plastic coffee stirrer in his pocket bearing the imprint, “Quik-Stop of Oakdale,” and the store’s logo - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the defendant recently had been in the Quik-Stop.
Not hearsay. Unlikely that anyone other than Quik-Stop would have these coffee stirrers.
hearsay? The arresting officer’s testimony that at the time she arrested the defendant he told her his name was Jeffrey Small, when in fact his name is Kevin Martinson - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the defendant was conscious of his guilt of the robbery.
Not hearsay. The defendant’s lie is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. In any event, the evidence is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) as the statement of a party opponent.
hearsay? The arresting officer’s testimony that at the time she arrested the defendant he told her his name was Jesse James, when in fact his name is Kevin Martinson - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the defendant was insane.
Hearsay. If the defendant’s claim is that he believes he is Jesse James, then the statement is hearsay as intended to prove he is insane. But the evidence is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A) as the statement of a party opponent.
hearsay? The testimony of the defendant’s neighbor that on the night before the robbery she overheard the defendant’s sister say to the defendant, “My son borrowed my car without permission. How do you think I should discipline him?” - if offered by the prosecutor to prove the defendant’s sister believed he was sane.
Not hearsay. The sister’s words manifest her belief in her brother’s sanity and good judgment, but she wasn’t intending to communicate that.
