Defining the Hearsay Rule under Evidence Law
What is the Hearsay Rule?
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. The Hearsay Rule generally excludes such statements from evidence because the declarant (person who made the statement) is not present in court to be cross-examined, raising concerns about reliability.
Formal Definition
Hearsay: A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The rule prevents a party from introducing out-of-court statements to establish the truth of what the statement asserts.
Purpose of the Hearsay Rule
Reliability: Oral or written statements made outside the courtroom are less reliable than live testimony because they can be fabricated, misremembered, or misstated.
Cross-Examination: The opposing party has no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Verification: The fact-finder cannot observe the declarant’s demeanor or assess credibility firsthand.
Key Elements to Identify Hearsay
Out-of-Court Statement: The statement was made outside the current trial or hearing.
Offered for Truth: The statement is introduced to prove the truth of what it says.
Declarant: The person who made the original statement.
If all three are met, the statement is hearsay and generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.
Hearsay Exceptions and Exemptions
Though the rule excludes hearsay, many exceptions allow hearsay evidence when reliability can be presumed, such as:
Present Sense Impression: Statement describing an event made while perceiving it.
Excited Utterance: Statement made under stress or excitement.
Statements Against Interest: A statement that would subject the declarant to liability.
Business Records: Records made in the regular course of business.
Prior Statements of Witnesses: Prior consistent or inconsistent statements under certain conditions.
Important Case Law on the Hearsay Rule
1. Ohio v. Roberts (1980)
Issue: The Supreme Court considered whether hearsay statements could be admitted if they bore "adequate indicia of reliability."
Holding: The Court held that hearsay could be admitted if the declarant was unavailable and the statement had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.
Significance: Established the reliability test, though later modified.
2. Crawford v. Washington (2004)
Issue: Whether hearsay statements violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
Holding: The Court ruled that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Significance: Emphasized the constitutional dimension of the hearsay rule, particularly in criminal trials.
3. Bruton v. United States (1968)
Issue: The use of a co-defendant’s confession implicating another defendant.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that admitting such statements violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Significance: Highlights limitations on hearsay admissibility where it infringes on confrontation rights.
Examples Illustrating Hearsay
Hearsay: A witness testifies, “John told me he saw the defendant steal the car.” (Offered to prove the defendant stole the car) → Inadmissible hearsay.
Non-Hearsay: A witness testifies, “John told me he was scared of the defendant.” (Not offered to prove the defendant is scary, but to explain John’s state of mind) → Not hearsay.
Summary
The hearsay rule excludes out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, primarily to preserve the reliability of evidence and protect defendants’ rights. Its application is nuanced with many exceptions and constitutional considerations, as illustrated in landmark cases like Crawford v. Washington and Ohio v. Roberts.
RELATED Blog
comments