Hearsay

Encyclopedia : H : HE : HEA : Hearsay

This article is about the legal term. For the law in England and Wales see Hearsay in English Law. For other uses, see Hearsay (disambiguation).

Evidence

Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Testimony · Documentary evidence
Physical evidence · Digital evidence
Exculpatory evidence · Scientific evidence (law)>Scientific evidence
Demonstrative evidence
Relevance
Burden of proof
Laying a foundation
Subsequent remedial measure
Character evidence · Habit evidence
Similar fact evidence
Authentication
Chain of custody
Judicial notice · Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Witnesses
Competence · Privilege
Direct examination · Cross-examination
Impeachment · Recorded recollection
Expert witness · Dead man statute
Hearsay (and its exceptions)
Excited utterance · Dying declaration
Party admission · Ancient document
Declaration against interest
Present sense impression · Res gestae
Learned treatise
*Other areas of the common law*
Contract law · Tort law · Property law
Wills and Trusts · '''Criminal law

Hearsay is a legal term used to describe an out-of-court statement offered to establish the truth of the facts asserted in that statement. Hearsay is generally not admissible in common law courts because it is of dubious value, but there are many exceptions to this prohibition.

Contents

1 Application
2 Common misconceptions
3 Theories supporting the hearsay rule
4 Hearsay exceptions and exclusions

4.1 Non-Hearsay
4.2 Hearsay exceptions that apply even where the declarant is available
4.3 Hearsay exceptions that apply only where the declarant is unavailable
4.4 Theories supporting hearsay exceptions

5 External links

Application

Generally in common law courts the "hearsay rule" applies, which says that a trier of fact (judge or jury) cannot be informed of a hearsay statement unless it meets certain strict requirements. However, the rules for admissibility are more relaxed in court systems based on the civil law system. In the civil law system, the courts, whether consisting only of judges or featuring a jury, have wide latitude to appreciate the evidence brought before them.

[Note: Louisiana, a civil law jurisdiction, does not share the above referenced feature generally found in civil law jurisdictions. With few exceptions, Louisiana follows rules predicated upon the Federal Rules of Evidence.]

Furthermore, even in common law systems, the hearsay rule only applies to actual trials. Hearsay is admissible as evidence in many other judicial proceedings, such as grand jury deliberations, probation hearings, parole revocation hearings, and proceedings before administrative bodies.

Common misconceptions

One major misconception by non-lawyers regarding the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible at trial. While the general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible, numerous exceptions to the rule exist, whereby hearsay would be admissible.

There are two other common misconceptions concerning the hearsay rule. The first is that it is commonly thought of within the context of "who said what to whom,", i.e., repeating what somebody else said. However, it also applies to written documents and electronic records. Even written documents made under oath, such as an affidavit or notarized statement, are subject to the 'hearsay rule'.

The second misconception is that hearsay is often thought of as a situation where the person testifying at trial repeats what somebody else said or wrote. This is only partially correct. What makes a statement hearsay is not the statement itself, but the fact that it is being offered as evidence of the statement being true. If the purpose for which the out of court statement is being offered does not depend on the statement being true, then it is not hearsay.

Consider the following example:

Joey, a police officer, hears cries of "Help, he's going to kill me! Help!" from inside a house. Believing that there is a crime in progress, the officer kicks the front door down and enters the home to discover the homeowner, Ross, assaulting a victim, Monica, who is crying and visibly shaking. Ross is charged with attempted murder. Two separate trials might result from these circumstances.

#First, a criminal trial against Ross, who proclaims his innocence and demands a trial for the criminal charges alleged.

#Second, a civil trial in which Ross sues Joey for invading his home, wherein Joey will assert that there was just cause to enter the home because he had a genuine belief that a crime was occurring.

In the first trial, where the issue is whether an attempted murder in fact occurred, Joey is asked to repeat the victim's cries for help. The statements would be hearsay. Joey is being asked to repeat Monica's statements to prove an attempted murder in fact occurred. That assertion depends on Monica's statements actually being true. However, the trier of fact may still get to hear the hearsay statement, provided that the statement meets an exception to the hearsay rule (it would most likely fall under the "present sense impression" or "excited utterance" exceptions). Exceptions to the rule, i.e., cases where a trier of fact gets to hear a statement even though it is hearsay, are discussed below.

In the second trial, however, Joey is not trying to argue that a murder was in fact about to take place. The officer is merely asserting a genuine belief that a murder was about to take place. The officer repeats the victim's statements to show why the officer had a genuine belief. In that case, the statement is not hearsay. Whether the victim was about to be murdered does not matter, only that the officer genuinely believed a crime was occurring.

It should also be noted that a person's own statements can be hearsay. For example, suppose a person is testifying on the stand. In relation to an automobile accident where a blue truck struck a yellow car, the witness testifies, "I told the police officer the truck was blue." This statement is hearsay. It is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore hearsay. The witness is testifying about what someone said in the past. The fact that it is his own statement does not change the hearsay nature of the statement. Contrast with if the witness testifies, "The truck that struck the yellow car was blue." This is not hearsay. The witness is not testifying about a past statement. He is not relating in court what someone outside of court said, but merely relating an observation. The truth that a person's own statements can be considered hearsay is confusing at first, but by "forgetting" who is testifying on the stand and merely looking for statements like "I said" , "I wrote", "I testified before that", "The document says", and the like, most confusion can be eliminated.

Theories supporting the hearsay rule

Today the hearsay rule has developed into a complex set of evidentiary rules of admissibility that are used to prevent various types of statements and documents from being entered into evidence in various types of court proceedings, though they may be allowed in other types of hearings, such as alternative dispute resolution. Generally speaking hearsay is a concept that developed in the common law legal tradition in the context of the adversarial system of decision making.

There are three reasons that hearsay evidence is deemed to be untrustworthy, and thus inadmissible. The first is that the credibility of the person being quoted (the out-of-court "declarant") or the declarant's observations cannot be cross-examined by the person against whom the testimony is being offered in court. In this connection, the hearsay rule helps to protect the right of a criminal defendant (guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States) "to be confronted with witnesses against him." Under the Confrontation Clause, testimonial hearsay is prohibited unless the accused is afforded a right to confront and cross examine the witness who is offering the hearsay statement. The second reason is because the trier of fact was unable to see the demeanor of the declarant when the out-of-court statement was made. The tone of a person's voice (sarcasm, surprise) can change the fundamental meaning of a statement. Finally, the out-of-court statement was not made while the declarant was under oath.

Hearsay exceptions and exclusions

The fact that a statement is hearsay does not automatically mean that it is inadmissible in court. While hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in common law legal proceedings such as litigation there are many exceptions, some (but far from all) of which apply only when the declarant is unavailable.

Many of the exceptions listed below are treated more extensively in individual articles.

Non-Hearsay

Party admissions: any statements made by a declarant who is a party to the case offered against that party, even if that declarant had no basis for knowing the truth of the statement. For example, if an employee rushes to tell the director of a trucking company that one of his trucks has been in an accident, and the director says, "oh, we're behaving so negligently, lately," that statement will be admissible when offered as evidence by the trucking company's opponent in the lawsuit - even though the manager had no reason to know that this particular accident was the result of negligence. A party admission is also called a statement by a party-opponent, and is probably the most important category of exceptions to the inadmissibility of out-of-court statements. Under the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, party admissions are considered NON-HEARSAY, and NOT an EXCEPTION to the hearsay rule (note that some other United States or common-law jurisdictions categorize admissions differently).
* Vicarious admissions: are admissions that are receivable against parties other than the one who made them. Applicable against co-conspirators or in a respondeat superior situation, but not against mere co-defendants.
Prior Statement of Identification
Prior Consistent Statements: if the witness made a previous statement that is consistent with the witness's trial testimony, it may be introduced to rebut an express or implied charge of fabrication if the prior consistent statement preceded the alleged motive to fabricate.

Hearsay exceptions that apply even where the declarant is available

Excited utterances: statements relating to startling events or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. This is the exception that may apply to the 'police officer' scenario listed above. The victim's cries of help were made under the stress of a startling event, and the victim is still under the stress of the event, as is evidenced by the victim's crying and visible shaking. An excited utterance does not have to be made at the same time of the startling event. A statement made minutes, hours or even days after the startling event can be excited utterances, so long as the declarant is still under the stress of the startling event. However, the more time that elapses between a startling event and the declarant's statement, the more the statements will be looked upon with disfavor.
Present sense impressions: A statement expressing the declarant's impression of a condition existing at the time the statement was made, such as "it's hot in here", or "we're going really fast". Unlike an excited utterance, it need not be made in response to a startling event. Instead, it is admissible because it is a condition that the witness would likely have been experiencing at the same time as the declarant, and would instantly be able to corroborate.
Declarations of present state of mind: Much like a present sense impression describes the outside world, declarant's statement to the effect of "I am angry!" or "I am Napoleon!" will be admissible to prove that the declarant was indeed angry, or did indeed believe himself to be Napoleon at that time. Used in cases where the declarant's mental state is at issue. Present state of mind statements are also used as circumstantial evidence of subsequent acts committed by the declarant. (like him saying "I'm gonna go buy some groceries and get the oil changed in my car on my way home from work.")

Another exception is statements made in the course of medical treatment, i.e., statements made by a patient to a medical professional to help in diagnosis and treatment. Any statements contained therein that attribute fault or causation to an individual will generally NOT be admissible under this exception, unless it involves a small child. (The "Tender Years" doctrine).

the business records exception: business records created during the ordinary course of business are considered reliable and can usually be brought in under this exception if the proper foundation is laid when the records are introduced into evidence. Depending on which jurisdiction the case is in, either the records custodian or someone with knowledge of the records must lay a foundation for the records, however.

The use of Police records, especially as substantive evidence against the accused in a criminal trial, is severely restricted under the Business Records exception. Typically, only generalized evidence about police procedure is admissible under this exception, and not facts about a specific case. For example, John is stopped for speeding 70 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone. The officer, who determined John's speed with radar, records the speed in an incident report. He also calibrates and runs a diagnostic on his radar every day prior to beginning his shift. He records this in a log. At trial, the report itself would not be admissible as it pertained to the facts of the case. However, the officer's daily log in which he records his calibration and the daily diagnostics of his radar unit would be admissible under the business records exception.

Other exceptions, declarant's availability immaterial:In the United States Federal Rules of Evidence, separate exceptions are made for public records, family records, and records in ancient documents of established authenticity. When regular or public records are kept, the absence of such records may also be used as admissible hearsay evidence.

Hearsay exceptions that apply only where the declarant is unavailable

dying declarations and other statements under belief of impending death: often depicted in movies; the police officer asks the person on his deathbed, "Who did it" and the victim replies, "The butler did it".
declarations against interest: the declarant made a statement, such as confessing to a crime or admitting liability for a tort, that goes so clearly against the declarant's own interest that a reasonable person would not make such an admission unless the person believed it were true. This differs from a party admission because here the declarant does not have to be a party to the case, but must have a basis for knowing that the statement is true. Furthermore, evidence of the statement will only be admissible if the declarant is unavailable to testify.

prior testimony: if the testimony was given under oath and the party against whom the testimony is being proffered was present and had the opportunity to cross examine the witness at that time. Often used to enter depositions into the court record at trial.

Theories supporting hearsay exceptions

In some jurisdictions such as Canada the limited exceptions format to the rule have been replaced by a more general theory of exceptions to the hearsay rule that allows courts to decide when documents, testimony or other evidentiary proof can be used that might not otherwise be considered.

The underlying rationale for many of the hearsay exceptions is that the circumstances of a particular statement make them reliable enough to be heard by a trier of fact. Statements made during the course of medical treatment, for example, are considered reliable because patients typically have little reason to lie to a doctor while they are being treated, and will generally be accurate in describing their ailments.

This, of course, is not always true. Patients do sometimes lie to their doctors (to get painkillers they are not entitled to, for example). Hearsay exceptions do not mandate that a trier of fact accept the hearsay statement as true. Hearsay exceptions only mean that the trier of fact (a judge or jury) will be informed of the hearsay statement and get to consider it when they make their decision in the case. They are free to disregard a hearsay statement if they do not believe it. The hearsay rule only controls what out of court statements a trier of fact gets to consider in deciding a case, not how they consider the out of court statements.

External links

[Federal Rules of Evidence, section VIII]

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.