8
Scenario: A witness testifies, “Chris told me that Taylor told him, ‘I saw Jordan break the window.’”
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay within hearsay.
Why: There are two separate out-of-court statements:
Taylor → Chris: “I saw Jordan break the window.”
Chris → Witness: repeating what Taylor said.
Rule 805 requires each part of the combined statement to qualify under an exception. Nothing in this scenario establishes an exception for either layer, so the statement is not admissible.
Scenario: A doctor testifies, “When the patient arrived, she told me, ‘My back hurts badly, and the pain started after I fell down the stairs.’”
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(4), Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.
Why: The patient was describing her symptoms and their general cause for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. The modified rules specifically allow those statements.
Scenario: During an argument, a witness hears Maya suddenly scream, “He has a gun!” Maya is shaking and crying when she says it.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(2), Excited Utterance.
Why: Seeing a gun during an argument can be a startling event, and Maya made the statement while still under the stress of that event. Rule 803(2) allows statements relating to a startling event made while the declarant is under the stress it caused.
Scenario: In a criminal trial, the prosecutor tries to introduce a police officer's report describing what the officer personally observed while investigating the crime.
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” The prosecutor responds, “It's a public record.” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay.
Why: This is an important limitation in Rule 803(8). Although some public records qualify for an exception, the modified rule specifically excludes, in a criminal case, matters observed by law-enforcement personnel from this part of the public-records exception.
Scenario: A properly authenticated letter written 25 years ago states that a particular piece of property belonged to Marcus.
Question: An attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(16), Statements in Ancient Documents.
Why: Under these modified rules, a statement contained in a document that is at least 20 years old may qualify if the document's authenticity has been established.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “The defendant looked at me and said, ‘I took the laptop, but I was going to give it back.’”
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).
Why: The defendant is an opposing party, and the statement is being offered against the defendant. Under the modified rules, an opposing party's own statement offered against that party is not hearsay.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “The morning after the fight, Marcus told me, ‘Jordan threw the first punch.’”
Question: Jordan's attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay.
Why: Marcus's statement was made outside court and is being offered to prove that Jordan actually threw the first punch. It wasn't made while Marcus was observing the event, and the facts given don't establish another exception under these modified rules.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “At 6:00 p.m., Alex told me, ‘I’m going to meet Jordan at the park tonight.’” Alex's statement is offered to show what Alex planned to do that evening.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(3), Then-Existing Mental or Emotional Condition.
Why: Alex is describing his current intent or plan. Rule 803(3) specifically allows a statement about a declarant's then-existing state of mind, including motive, intent, or plan.
Scenario: Seconds after being struck by a car, Taylor tells a bystander, “My leg hurts really bad.” The statement is offered to show Taylor was experiencing pain at that moment.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(3).
Why: Taylor is describing a then-existing physical condition. Rule 803(3) allows statements describing current sensory or physical conditions, including pain and bodily health.
Scenario: A witness testified under oath at an earlier lawful deposition. The witness has since died. The opposing party was present at the deposition and had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine the witness. An attorney now wants to introduce that testimony.
Question: The opposing attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Former Testimony under Rule 804(b)(1).
Why: The witness is unavailable because the witness has died. The testimony was previously given at a lawful deposition, and the opposing party had an opportunity and similar motive to question the witness.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “Right after the car crashed, I heard Maria scream, ‘That red truck ran the light!’”
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(2), Excited Utterance.
Why: The crash is a startling event, and Maria made the statement while she was still reacting to it. A statement relating to a startling event made while under the stress of that event is allowed.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “About an hour before the confrontation, Mia told me, ‘I'm scared of Alex. I don't want to be around him tonight.’”
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” The statement is being offered to show that Mia was afraid of Alex at that time. Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(3), Then-Existing Mental or Emotional Condition.
Why: Mia's statement describes her current emotional state—fear. Rule 803(3) allows statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition.
Scenario: The defendant sent a text message to a friend saying, “I was at the store that night.” The prosecution wants to introduce the defendant's text against him.
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).
Why: A written assertion can be a “statement,” but a statement made by an opposing party and offered against that party is classified as not hearsay under these rules.
Scenario: On Tuesday, Chris tells his friend, “Yesterday I saw Sam steal the laptop.” At Sam's trial, the friend is asked to repeat Chris's statement to prove Sam stole the laptop.
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay.
Why: Chris is describing something he remembers happening the previous day. It is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove that Sam actually stole the laptop. The facts given don't establish an exception.
Scenario: After being shot, the victim tells a paramedic, “I know I'm dying. Chris shot me because we argued over money.” The victim dies shortly afterward. Chris is prosecuted for the homicide.
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Rule 804(b)(2), Statement Under Belief of Imminent Death.
Why: In a homicide prosecution, an unavailable declarant's statement can be admitted when the declarant believed death was imminent and the statement concerned the cause or circumstances of that death.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “My friend told me that she saw the defendant steal the phone.”
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay.
Why: The friend made the statement outside of court, and the witness is repeating it to prove that the defendant actually stole the phone. Nothing in the scenario establishes one of the exceptions contained in the modified rules.
Scenario: A delivery company is being sued after one of its drivers caused a crash while making deliveries. The company's dispatcher told a customer that day, “Our driver is running two hours behind on his delivery route.” The customer testifies about that statement.
Question: The company objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).
Why: The statement was made by the company's employee about a matter within the scope of that employment while the employment relationship existed. When offered against the company, the modified rules treat this as an opposing party's statement, not hearsay.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “Three days after the fight, my friend told me, ‘Derek always carries a knife.’” The attorney offers the statement to prove Derek was carrying a knife during the fight.
Question: The opposing attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay.
Why: The friend made the statement outside of court, and it is being offered to prove the truth of what the friend said. The facts given do not establish a hearsay exception contained in these modified rules.
Scenario: A witness saw a hit-and-run and immediately wrote down the license plate number. Months later at trial, the witness cannot remember the plate number even after trying to refresh her memory. She testifies that she wrote the number down when her memory was fresh and that the note accurately reflected what she saw.
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Can the note be used?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(5), Recorded Recollection.
Why: The witness once knew the information but cannot now recall it well enough to testify fully. The record was made while the event was fresh and accurately reflects what the witness knew.
Important: The record may be read into evidence, but it may be received as an exhibit only if the adverse party offers it.
Scenario: Morgan previously told police, “I saw Alex start the fight.” At trial, Morgan simply refuses to testify about what happened, even after the judge orders Morgan to answer. The prosecutor wants the officer to repeat Morgan's earlier statement.
Question: The defense objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Sustain — Hearsay.
Why: Morgan may qualify as unavailable because Morgan refuses to testify despite a court order. But being unavailable does not automatically make every previous statement admissible. The statement must still fit one of Rule 804's specific exceptions. Nothing here establishes that Morgan's ordinary statement to police qualifies.
Scenario: A witness testifies, “I was talking to my sister on the phone when she suddenly said, ‘A blue SUV is pulling into the driveway right now.’”
Question: An attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(1), Present Sense Impression.
Why: The sister was describing something while she was actually seeing it happen. A statement describing an event while or immediately after the person perceives it is allowed.
Scenario: Carlos is unavailable to testify. Another witness testifies that Carlos previously told him, “Those drugs were mine. I hid them in the garage.” The statement could expose Carlos to criminal charges, and other evidence strongly supports that Carlos made a truthful statement.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 804(b)(3), Statement Against Interest.
Why: Carlos is unavailable, and his statement exposes himself to criminal liability. For this exception in a criminal case, the rules also require corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate the statement is trustworthy.
Scenario: A store manager identifies the store's sales records. The records are made at or near the time of each sale, are regularly kept by the store, and creating them is part of the store's normal business practice.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Allowed under Rule 803(6), Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity.
Why: The scenario establishes the requirements for a regularly kept business record: it was created at or near the time, based on knowledge, regularly kept, and creating the record was a regular practice.
Scenario: Jordan is unavailable to testify. Before becoming unavailable, Jordan told a friend, “I'm the one who cut the brake line.” Other evidence strongly supports the reliability of Jordan's statement.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — Statement Against Interest under Rule 804(b)(3).
Why: Admitting that you intentionally cut someone's brake line could expose you to criminal liability. Because Jordan is unavailable and corroborating circumstances clearly indicate trustworthiness, the statement can qualify as a statement against interest.
Scenario: A store manager testifies, “A customer ran up to me and said, ‘There's a bomb in the bathroom!’ I immediately evacuated the store.”
The statement is not being offered to prove there really was a bomb. It is offered only to explain why the manager evacuated the store.
Question: The attorney objects: “Hearsay!” Should the judge sustain or overrule?
Answer: Overrule — It is not hearsay.
Why: This one is about the purpose for which the statement is offered. Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Here, the attorney isn't trying to prove there actually was a bomb. The statement is being used to explain why the manager took action. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of hearsay.
Key lesson: An out-of-court statement is not automatically hearsay. Always ask:
“What is the attorney trying to prove by introducing the statement?”