Pg 31 Flashcards
What are things that are considered to be non-hearsay?
– Statements about the state of mind of the declarant
– statements indicating sanity
– statement providing context for the events in question
– statement showing declarant had knowledge of the fact when knowledge matters
– statement to show the person was not dead
– statement about NIED
– statement to show effect on the listener/warning/notice
– custody battle
– explaining subsequent conduct
– circumstantial explanation
– specialized knowledge held by a few
– impeachment by prior inconsistent statement
– verbal acts
What is an example of a statement about the state of mind of the declarant that would be considered to be non-hearsay?
A self defence claim
If a defendant is charged with murdering the victim and he claims self-defense, then the defendant calls a witness to say that he saw the defendant run around the corner just before the killing and say, “please help me. Victim is going to kill me.“ Is that considered to be hearsay?
No, that would be non-hearsay because it is offered not to show that the victim was chasing the defendant and going to kill him, but that defendant believed the victim would kill him, so he believed he needed to act in self-defence. In order to prove self-defense, the defendant must show he had an honest and reasonable belief of an imminent threat, and that his response with force was necessary. So the defendant’s subjective thought or belief is relevant, not to show truth, but as circumstantial evidence of what the defendant thought
What is an example of a statement indicating sanity that would not be considered to be a non-hearsay exemption?
If it is a commitment proceeding against the defendant to establish that he is mentally incompetent and should be institutionalized. The witness testified that the defendant said, “I am crazy.” That would be hearsay, because it is offered for its truth.
What is an example of a statement indicating sanity that could be used as a non-hearsay purpose?
If the witness testified that the defendant said, “I am Angelina Jolie.” That is not offered to prove that the defendant is Angelina Jolie, but to show that he is so out of touch with reality that he should be committed
**On an essay: “assuming this person isn’t actually Angelina Jolie, then…“
How is proving that a person was not dead considered to be a non-hearsay purpose?
If a nurse is charged with euthanizing patients, and she says the victim was already dead before she entered the room, but a witness testifies that 30 seconds before the nurse walked in the victim said, “taffy is delicious.“ That is not offered for the truth that taffy is actually delicious, but to show the victim was alive, because dead people do not talk. It doesn’t matter what the victim said, just that she spoke
How is NIED a non-hearsay purpose?
If a plaintiff sues a hospital for falsely telling her that her husband was dead. She testified, “they told me ‘your husband is dead.’ That is not offered to show that the husband was dead, but that the plaintiff suffered emotional distress by being told painful false information. So the statement is not offered for its truth, it is offered for its falsity
How is a statement to show the effect on the listener/warning/notice considered to be a non-hearsay purpose?
If it is not offered for its truth, but to show that someone was given a warning, or they were put on notice of something
If a plaintiff sues a restaurant for serving dangerously hot peppers, and the defendant calls the waiter to testify, “I told plaintiff the peppers were spicy.” Is that considered to be hearsay?
No because the purpose is not to show that the peppers are spicy, but that the plaintiff was given a warning, so the defendant acted reasonably and did not breach his duty of care. This could even show comparative negligence or assumption of the risk because the plaintiff was warned, but ate the peppers anyway. This is not offered for its truth, but to show that the plaintiff had notice
If a plaintiff sues a restaurant for serving dangerously hot peppers, would it be proper for a busboy to testify that the waiter came into the kitchen and said that he had told the plaintiff the peppers were spicy?
This is multiple levels of hearsay.
- waiter talking to busboy: only relevant to prove that the waiter did give a warning
- statement the waiter made to the plaintive: only relevant to prove the waiter gave a warning
This doesn’t work because you need a different exception or non-hearsay purpose for each level, and there is only one non-hearsay purpose here
How is a custody battle considered to be a non-hearsay purpose?
If a husband is battling with his ex-wife for custody, in order to show that the woman is a bad mom for letting a babysitter watch the kids, the husband provides a screenshot from a website that says the babysitter tortured kids.
The website is an out-of-court statement, but it’s not offered to show the babysitter is mean, it is offered to show that the wife had information suggesting she shouldn’t have hired the babysitter, but she did anyway, so she is an unfit parent and should lose custody. This statement is not offered for its truth, it is to show that the wife had notice that the babysitter was unfit
How is explaining subsequent conduct considered to be a non-hearsay purpose?
If the explanation of subsequent conduct is not offered for its truth, but to show why someone did something it can be allowed
What is an example of explaining subsequent conduct that would be considered to be a non-hearsay purpose?
If a tenant sues a landlord for injuries when he fell on a stairway. At trial the tenant calls a building inspector to testify that three days before the accident, the inspector got a call from another tenant in the building that said he had fallen. The inspector looked at the step and told the landlord that it needed to be fixed immediately. That involves more than one out of court statement
First: other tenant telling inspector he fell. This explains why the inspector came to see the building to begin with and provides context for what the inspector did next
Second: inspector’s statement to the landlord to fix the step. This is offered to show that the landlord was told the step needed to be fixed and that he had notice, so he breached his duty by not fixing it.
What is an example of a circumstantial explanation that is considered to be a non-hearsay purpose?
A massage parlor is prosecuted for being a brothel. Undercover cop that answered the phone testifies that a caller said, “I’d like a happy ending on Friday.“ This is not offered for the truth that the caller got a happy ending, but to show circumstantially that the place was a brothel, because if it wasn’t, the caller wouldn’t have asked for a happy ending before the receptionist even spoke. The caller’s statement under those circumstances is relevant to show the nature of the business, and thus is not hearsay
What is an example of specialized knowledge held by a few being non-hearsay?
Defendant was prosecuted for burglarizing a barn. He says X did it. He then called Z, who is X’s old cellmate, to testify that X told him there was a barn at a certain address that had a safe buried underneath it. This is offered to show that X had specialized knowledge that only a few people had, and was in a position to steal from the safe
