Hearsay
name all the admissible non hearsay uses of statements
In court statements, Statements that are not true, Effect on the Listener, Commands, Notice, Questions, & Bias
401
Chambers v. By the Book Publishing, Ltd. (2015)
The hearsay rule is only implicated where an out-of-court statement is being used for the truth of the matter asserted. If it only matters whether the out-of-court statement was made (not whether it was true), then the hearsay rule is not implicated.
701
Opinion Testimony by a Lay Witness: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702
611
Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses and Presenting Evidence: (a) Control by the Court; (b) Scope; (c) Leading
803(1)
Present Sense Impression - A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
602
Need for Personal Knowledge - A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule is subject to 703.
State v. B.F. De la Porta (2024)
To be inadmissible as hearsay, an out-of-court statement must be (a) an assertion of fact (b) offered to establish the truth of that asserted fact. No part of the rule against hearsay concerns itself with the “truth value” of an out-of-court statement beyond the fact asserted in the statement. The statement here contains several assertions of fact—that the investigating agent knew the Defendant was involved; that the Defendant was a mastermind and that the heist was of the sort the Defendant would commit; and that the Defendant would be his. Because the Defense disputed these assertions, it cannot be reasonably argued that any part of the Agent’s statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter(s) asserted. As such, the statement is definitionally not hearsay.
702
Testimony by an Expert Witness: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts and data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
How do you ask the judge to show an exhibit during zoom trial?
YH permission to screen share what has been previously marked as exhibit 15 onto the display
Why Exhibit 15? Because the Sox have won 15 in a row (bonus points)
803(21)
Reputation Concerning Character - A reputation among a person's associates or in the community concerning a person's character.
403
Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice: The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: Unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or cumulative.
Diamond Design Productions v. Fountain (2021)
The trial court must carefully safeguard witness opinion testimony to prevent conclusions that are exclusively legal, and not factual, in nature. In a civil case, a witness’s generalized opinion about whether or not another party is liable or responsible for an accident will not “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” within the meaning of MRE 702. For example, in a trucking accident case, an expert could testify that a truck driver broke federal regulations by exceeding his hours of service, that the driver was likely fatigued due to the excess driving, and that the driver’s fatigue was a likely cause of the accident. However, the same expert could not testify that the driver was “liable” for the accident or that the fatigue was the “proximate” or “legal” cause of the accident, as these conclusions were purely legal in nature.
703
Bases of an Expert's testimony: An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
On Cross Examination you are asked a question that you know is not true. What is your response?
No.
805
Hearsay within Hearsay - Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the rule
608
A witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness: (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence; (b) Specific Instances of conduct
State v. Watt (1983)
Under MRE 104(a), courts may consider custodial documents, such as clerks’ certifications or affidavits of records keepers, when determining the admissibility of other evidence without regard for the admissibility of the custodial document itself. The custodial document typically only addresses preliminary matters of admissibility and is not entered into evidence.
704
Opinion on the Ultimate Issue
(a) In General – Not Automatically Objectionable. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.
(b) Exception. In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.
What is our goal for RR
to have fun!
804
404
Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts: (a) Character Evidence: Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(b) Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a particular occasion a person acted in accordance with the character.
Holdener v. Scandone (2012)
This case is brought under Civil Code section 318(a), the Midlands election fraud statute.
Plaintiff, an eligible voter, alleges that Defendant, a candidate for city council, approved campaign messages intended to make certain voters less likely to vote. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, but we reverse and order the trial court to enter a judgment dismissing the case. The complaint does not allege that the statements were false. Claims for election fraud may not be based on truthful information spread for a nefarious, even undemocratic purpose. The plaintiff must show the statements were false.
What are the exceptions to 404(a) for non-defendant witness's
607, 608, and 609 -> What is 608? (double question for double points?)
Who are the best coaches in the world?
Jaclyn, Mel, Nick and Myles