This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Outlines Evidence Outlines

Evidence Chapter 3 Hearsay Outline

Updated Evidence Chapter 3 Hearsay Notes

Evidence Outlines

Evidence

Approximately 796 pages

Hello! These are my notes and outlines for Evidence, based on the textbook by Sklansky, Evidence: Cases, Commentary and Problems (4th ed.).

The full course outline includes detailed case briefs, along with class discussions. You could use it to excel in cold-calls even if you haven't done the readings.

The exam outline has been pared down. It will be good for persons looking to learn the main points of material before their exam, without worrying about the detailed factual and procedural ...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Evidence Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Table of Contents

Chapter 3. Hearsay 1

A. The Hearsay Rule and Its Rationale 2

1. Introduction 2

2. Nonhearsay Uses of Out-of-Court Statements 4

3. Implied Assertions 10

B. Hearsay and Confrontation 13

C. Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule 19

1. Prior Statements by Witnesses 19

2. Admissions by Opposing Parties 21

a. Direct Admissions 22

i. Generally 22

ii. Admissions and Multiple Hearsay 23

iii. Admissions and Completeness 24

b. Adoptive Admissions 25

c. Authorized Admissions 26

d. Agent and Employee Admissions 27

e. Co-Conspirator Admissions 30

f. Admissions and the Bruton Rule 32

3. Spontaneous and Contemporaneous Statements 35

4. State of Mind 38

a. Generally 39

b. The Hillmon Doctrine 39

5. Injury Reports 43

6. Recorded Recollection 44

7. Business Records 47

a. Generally 47

b. Qualifying “Businesses” 49

d. Sources of Information 52

e. Absence of Record 52

8. Public Records 53

9. Former Testimony 59

10. Dying Declarations 63

11. Declarations Against Interest 65

12. Forfeiture By Wrongdoing 68

13. Residual Exception 71

D. Hearsay and Due Process 73

*NB: This outline accords with Sklansky, Evidence: Cases, Commentary and Problems 4th ed.

Chapter 3. Hearsay

A. The Hearsay Rule and Its Rationale

1. Introduction

FRE 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.

  • [Professor’s definition: “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”]

    • Witness and declarant can be the same person: when the witness testifies about a statement he made outside of court.

      • The witness needn’t be a person (it could be a diary), but the declarant must be a live person.

    • “The matter asserted” means matter asserted by the declarant, not by the party.

    • “Introduced to prove” means any step in the chain of inferences; it needn’t be the first or ultimate step.

    • It doesn’t matter how the out-of-court statement is proven.

  • A good way to identify hearsay is to consider the chain of inferences the party offering the evidence is asking the party to make.

    • If it follows this, it’s hearsay: declarant says X; therefore, declarant believes X to be true; therefore, X is true.

      • Inference between statement and belief carries risk of sincerity (declarant lying) and risk of narration (what does declarant mean when saying X).

      • Inference between belief and truth carries risk of perception (declarant misperceived situation) and risk of memory (declarant misremembers).

    • If it doesn’t follow this chain of inferences, it’s not hearsay.

FRE 802. The Rule Against Hearsay

  • Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

    • a federal statute;

    • these rules; or

    • other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh for High Treason (1603)

  • D was charged with conspiring with Lord Cobham [“W1”] to kill King James. W1 was interrogated and signed a sworn confession he later recanted. This confession was the chief evidence against D.

  • D requests W1 be brought to court to testify.

    • If W1 avows the confession, it will make conviction easier.

    • Witnesses are brought to testify even when the stakes are low, and here the stakes are very high.

    • W1 is the only one who initially accused D and caused charges to be brought.

    • Campion the Jesuit was allowed to meet his accuser face to face.

    • W1 is unlikely to lie in D’s favor, since W1 is already condemned (men facing death presumed to speak truthfully) and if D instigated the treason then W1 would want to seek revenge.

  • Court rejects D’s request to face W1.

    • Any risk to the king must be disallowed.

    • When no other evidence, accuser can be heard; but here there is other evidence.

    • W1 may contradict prior confession out of fear or favor, deceiving the jury.

  • P produces a witness viva voce named Dyer [“W2”].

    • W2 says a Portugal Gentleman [declarant] told W2 that D and W1 would kill the King.

    • P says this statement must have come from “some preceding intelligence” and shows D’s “treason had wings.”

  • D found guilty of treason.

Leake v. Hagert, 175 N.W.2d 675 (N.D. 1970)

Facts:

  • Appeal by P from judgment of dismissal of his cause of action and from order of trial court denying motion for new trial.

  • P sued D for negligence after D crashed car into the back of a tractor P was driving.

  • D counterclaimed, alleging P negligently drove at night without proper lights.

  • All claims and defenses of both P and D were submitted to jury, which dismissed the complaint and counterclaim.

  • On appeal, P contends that the trial court erred when it admitted, over objection, testimony adduced from W1, who investigated the accident and testified D’s son told W1 a light on the rear of the tractor had been out for some time.

Opinion (Paulson, J):

  • W1’s testimony was hearsay and should have been excluded.

    • Hearsay rule prohibits use of a person’s assertion, as equivalent to testimony of the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand, where he may be probed and cross-examined as to the grounds of his assertion and his qualifications to make it.

    • D’s son did not testify, was not party to action, was not under oath, was not subject to cross-exam, and was not available to testify because he was in the army overseas.

  • The erroneous admission was not prejudicial and did not constitute reversible error.

    • Error in the admission of evidence is not a ground for a new trial unless such error affects the substantial rights of the parties.

    • Other witnesses testified to the same information, and D himself introduced a statement by W1 asserting the same information.

...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Evidence Outlines.