HEARSAY OUTLINE - HEARSAY OUTLINE RULE 801 DEFINITIONS...

HEARSAY OUTLINE
RULE 801: DEFINITIONS
801(A) Statement: 1. an oral or written assertion, or 2. nonverbal conduct of a
person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion
801(B) Declarant: a person who makes the statement
801(C) Hearsay: a statement, not made by the declarant while testifying at the trial
or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted
- Assertion: to say that something is so, ex. That an event happened or that a
condition existed
- You only have hearsay if the in-court declarant is seeking to prove the proposition
of what the out-of-court declarant said
- Legal operative words do not constitute hearsay: ex. I do; I accept the contract
- We have the hearsay rule because the 6 th amendment guarantees the ∆ the right to
confront his witnesses
- Defamation is not hearsay because it has a legal effect
- 801(c) It is well established that statements which may themselves affect the legal
rights of the parties are not considered hearsay
- EX. Employer heard that the employee was late all the time. The effects of this
caused the employer to fire that person, it would be hearsay.
- Silence or a person will normally be nonhearsay under 801, since silence is
nonverbal conduct and silence would not normally be intended as a substitute for
verbal expression
COMMON WEALTH v. FARRIS (pg 103)
- Evidence as to the purport of information received by the witness, or a statement
of the result of investigation made by other persons, offered as evidence of the
facts asserted out of the court, have been held to be hearsay
- In this case, the out-of-court asserter did not testify. He was not therefore subject
to cross-examination, either to test the basis of his statement to the detective that
appellant had been one of the men involved in the robbery, or to uncover any
motive that he might have had to lie about appellant’s involvement
McClure v. State (pg 110)
- ∆ is on trial for murder, and he tried to reduce it to voluntary manslaughter. He
claims that he was upset that his wife was cheating on him
- Cindy is the witness who offers evidence that his wife was cheating
- The proposition is the effect of hearing the statement that his wife was cheating to
determine his mens rea to determine if it was manslaughter under the statute
- Since this evidence wasn’t used to prove that the wife was cheating on him, but
rather the effects, this is an 801(c)
1

- The evidence was not hearsay because it was not being offered to prove the truth
of the matter that she did or didn’t sleep with someone, but rather the effects that
it had after hearing such a statement
- When it is proved that D made a statement to X, with the purpose of showing the
probable state of mind thereby induced in X, such as being put on notice or
having actual knowledge, or motive, or to show the information which X had as
bearing on the reasonableness or good faith of the subsequent conduct of X, or
anxiety, the evidence is not subject to attack as hearsay
EX. Nurse tells the doctor that the sponge is in. The proposition trying to be proved is
that she said the statement, not that there was a sponge missing. This is not hearsay