{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}



Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
- 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
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}