Rule Numbers
801
Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay (a) Statement. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion. (b) Declarant. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement. (c) Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay.
Statement
a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion
801(d)(2)(a)
An Opposing Party’s Statement:
(a) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity
Richards vs. Mississippi BQQ
MRE 703 does not permit experts to testify or present a chart in a manner that simply summarizes inadmissible hearsay without first relating that hearsay to some specialized knowledge on the expert’s part. The Court must distinguish experts relying on otherwise inadmissible hearsay to form scientific conclusions from conduits who merely repeat what they are told. The testimony of the former is admissible; that of the latter is not. At the same time, statements that would otherwise be admissible are not inadmissible simply because they are offered by or through an expert witness.
803(3)
Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. (motive intent or plan)
802
Rule 802. The Rule Against Hearsay Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: • these rules; or • other rules prescribed by the Midlands Supreme Court.
Declarant
801(d)(1)
A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross examination about a prior statement
America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles
The Court recognizes that practices differ in other jurisdictions. But in Midlands, the definition of “hearsay” includes out-of-court statements by a witness who is on the stand or by another person who has or will be testifying in a particular trial.
803(2)
Excited Utterance
A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
803
and how many there are (in the amtaverse)
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay – Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
there's 23
truth value
either of the values, true or false, that may be taken by a statement.... i think one of u could probably define it better
801(d)(2)(e)
was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy
Petrillo v. Martini and Peony Estates
Labels that are placed on commercially sold products for purposes of identifying the product and / or the contents thereof should not be excluded as hearsay. While Midlands has no general residual hearsay exception, commercial labels are relied upon by the public and are subject to legal requirements to ensure their accuracy and completeness. Thus, the reliability concerns that underlie the hearsay rule are not present with labels that are placed on commercially sold products.
803(6)
Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity
(A) the record was made at or near the time by – or from information transmitted by – someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) neither the source of information nor the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
804
Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay –When the Declarant Is Unavailable as a Witness
what is hearsay
an out of court statement being used by the truth of the matter asserted
Give like 4 examples of things that are non-hearsay (i.e. notice)
notice; identification; effect on the listener; command; suggestion; bias; state v dlp
Seferian v. Morales
In a matter of first impression, this Court is tasked with deciding, for hearsay purposes in a Slayer Statute proceeding, how to treat out-of-court statements made by third parties who conspired with a defendant who facilitated the decedent’s death. On one hand, it makes sense for such statements to be admitted for similar reasoning as MRE 801(d)(2)(E). On the other hand, the standard of proof to admit a statement under MRE 801(d)(2)(E) or similar rules is by a preponderance of the evidence—the same standard as a Slayer Statute proceeding generally—meaning statements would only be admissible if the plaintiff has already met its burden. Ultimately, the Court cannot come up with another standard of proof to admit such statements and therefore rules such statements are not admissible under MRE 801(d)(2)(E). Such statements, however, may still be admissible under MRE 803 and MRE 804 as well as for non-hearsay reasons.
803(14)
Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property
The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if: (A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it; (B) the record is kept in a public office; and (C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office
805
Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.
Declarant Unavailable
A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant: (1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies; (2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so; (3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter; (4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness; or (5) is absent from the trial or hearing and the statement’s proponent has not been able, by process or other reasonable means, to procure: (A) the declarant’s attendance, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(1) or (6); or (B) the declarant’s attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2), (3), or (4). But this subdivision (a) does not apply if the statement’s proponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the declarant from attending or testifying. Comment: This rule may not be used at trial to assert that a team has “procured” the unavailability of a witness by choosing not to call that witness.
801(d)(2)(d)
An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or
State v. B.F. De la Porta
Defendant offered statements of the investigating agent (“I know that you did this. You’re a mastermind and this is exactly the type of job that you would pull . . . and now you’re gonna be mine”) to show bias in the investigation. The State objected to hearsay, arguing the “truth value”— that which the Defense wished the jury to infer from the statement—was that the Agent was out to get the Defendant and that was the purpose for which the Defense was entering it. Held: 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.
803(19)
Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History
A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage – or among a person’s associates or in the community – concerning Last Updated: September 2, 2021 - 13 - the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.