non hearsay purpose examples
It provides that the contents of the declarant's statement do not alone suffice to establish a conspiracy in which the declarant and the defendant participated. (2) An Opposing Partys Statement. The court must consider in addition the circumstances surrounding the statement, such as the identity of the speaker, the context in which the statement was made, or evidence corroborating the contents of the statement in making its determination as to each preliminary question. In this case, each level of the hearsay will need to have a separate exception or non-hearsay purpose. 931597. The prior statement is consistent with the testimony given on the stand, and, if the opposite party wishes to open the door for its admission in evidence, no sound reason is apparent why it should not be received generally. This amendment is in accordance with existing practice. Hearsay . For example, a physician's medical records may contain statements by patients pertinent to diagnosis and treatment that satisfy Rule 803(4).. Admittedly evidence of this character is untested with respect to the perception, memory, and narration (or their equivalents) of the actor, but the Advisory Committee is of the view that these dangers are minimal in the absence of an intent to assert and do not justify the loss of the evidence on hearsay grounds. A basic explanation is when a phrase or idea gets lost through explanation. George Street Post Shop The evidence of a trial witness' prior identification may be presented by a third party who was present at the identifications, see United States v. Matters Outside the Uniform Evidence Acts, Uniform Evidence Acts and other legislation, The Framework of Religious Exemptions in Anti-discrimination Legislation, Australias Corporate Criminal Responsibility Regime. 2006) (rejecting the government's argument that informants' statements to officers were admissible to explain the officers' conduct as "impossibly overbroad" and "warning prosecutors [about] backdoor attempts to get statements by non-testifying [witnesses] before a jury"); United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir.2004) (rejecting a similar argument as "eviscerat[ing] the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine one's accusers"). Here's an example. The amendment does not change the traditional and well-accepted limits on bringing prior consistent statements before the factfinder for credibility purposes. New Jersey, California, and Utah have adopted a rule similar to this one; and Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin have adopted the identical Federal rule. The Rule, however, is not addressed to the question of the sufficiency of evidence to send a case to the jury, but merely as to its admissibility. [107] In oral evidence, Calin admitted signing the statement to police but denied that the statements in the signed document were his. (Pub. 741, 765767 (1961). 1. See Morgan, Hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Hearsay Concept, 62 Harv.L. The text of the proposed amendment was changed to clarify that the traditional limits on using prior consistent statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive are retained. However, the change must be considered in the context described above: that of the realities of the trial, and the statutory context in which s 60 operates. 1925), when the jury decides that the truth is not what the witness says now, but what he said before, they are still deciding from what they see and hear in court. 530 (1958). 2103 (1945), the fact is that, of the many common law exceptions to the hearsay rule, only that for reported testimony has required the statement to have been made under oath. The program is offered in two formats: on-campus and online. The Hearsay Rule and Section 60; 8. Is the test of substantial probative value too high? The Supreme Court considered the admissibility of evidence of prior identification in Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. The amendments are technical. The School of Government depends on private and public support for fulfilling its mission. Illustrative are People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621, 7 Cal.Rptr. Seperate multiple e-mail addresses with a comma. Extensive criticism of this situation was identified in ALRC 26. See, e.g., United States v. Beckham, 968 F.2d 47, 51 (D.C.Cir. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. A. Hearsay Rule. The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarants authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). The Senate amendment eliminated this provision. We pay our respects to the people, the cultures and the elders past, present and emerging. The effect must be, it seems to me, to make it more likely that the evidence was truthful, and if the evidence and prior statement was to the same effect (as the term consistent seems to require), then the statement is being used as evidence of the truth of its content. N.C. R. E VID. This is a more realistic approach than expecting the tribunal of fact to draw the artificial and difficult distinction, required by the common law, of using the evidence for one purpose but not for another. Similar provisions are found in Uniform Rule 63(9)(a), Kansas Code of Civil Procedure 60460(i)(1), and New Jersey Evidence Rule 63(9)(a). (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. But equally often, the proponent of what appears to be hearsay evidence will attempt to introduce it for a non-hearsay purpose, i.e., for a purpose other than to establish the truth of the matter asserted. W has made a statement to the police that X told W that X had seen D leave a night club with the victim shortly before the sexual assault is alleged to have occurred. 1987), cert. In her defense, Debbie plans to introduce a statement made by Wally to her in which Wally said, Its going to be cold today. Debbie does not plan to prove that it was cold. Second hand hearsay evidence of the police officer could only be used for a non-hearsay purpose (challenge the credibility of the witness.) . Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules1987 Amendment. Of course, the same statement which is not hearsay when offered for its effect on listener, i.e., relevant for the fact said, is hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 491 (2007). At that time, he is on the stand and can explain an earlier position and be cross-examined as to both. The rule requires in each instance, as a general safeguard, that the declarant actually testify as a witness, and it then enumerates three situations in which the statement is excepted from the category of hearsay. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty . Present federal law, except in the Second Circuit, permits the use of prior inconsistent statements of a witness for impeachment only. 417 (D.D.C. The House approved the long-accepted rule that a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not hearsay as it was submitted by the Supreme Court. Typically, however, the expert relies partly upon statements made to him or her by others about their observations of events which are facts in issue, together with a wide range of factual information from more remote sources. 801(c), is presumptively inadmissible. [91] Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 38 (1987), [144]. An array of North Carolina cases support this conclusion, including State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268 (1990), State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480 (1977), and In re Mashburn, 162 N.C. App. To address these possibilities, the uniform Evidence Acts contain Part 3.11, which can be invoked either to exclude the evidence or to limit its permitted use. Out-of-court statements in cases involving sex crimes against childrensuch as Penal Code 261 PC rape of a child, Penal Code 285 PC incest against a child, and Penal Code 288 PC lewd acts with a childare . But judges and lawyers on both sides should also remain alert to attempts to circumvent the hearsay rules by introducing critical evidence under the guise of explaining conduct. This issue is discussed further in Ch 9. hearsay: A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This can be translated to mean that if a representation is admitted into evidence for a reason other than to prove its truth (non-hearsay purpose), then it automatically becomes relevant for all purposes, including the hearsay purpose. 5 1. It has been held that the prior identification is hearsay, and, when admitted through the testimony of the identifier, is merely a prior consistent statement. 931277. [94] See Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [334]. 5 Wigmore 1557. 8C-801, Official Commentary. 2015), trans. The Advisory Committee finds these views more convincing than those expressed in People v. Johnson, 68 Cal.2d 646, 68 Cal.Rptr. Can Ollie testify about those interviews, too, because they explain his conduct in obtaining a search warrant for Dans house? The evidence rules provide that hearsay is inadmissible except as provided by statute or the rule themselves. 855, 860861 (1961). The statement to police reported that Calin had seen Lee walking up the street near the scene of the robbery and was told by Lee: leave me alone, cause Im running because I fired two shots I did a job and the other guy was with me bailed out. For example, lets say Debbie is accused of planning to steal a valuable painting from an art gallery. If the statement is offered for a non-hearsay purpose, is that purpose relevant and, if so, does it satisfy a Rule 403 analysis? Cf. First, the amendment codifies the holding in Bourjaily by stating expressly that a court shall consider the contents of a coconspirator's statement in determining the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered. According to Bourjaily, Rule 104(a) requires these preliminary questions to be established by a preponderance of the evidence. 2000)) See Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. For example, if Dwight Schrute is on the witness stand and testifies that Michael Scott said "there was a murder in the Office" (pun intended. The decision in each case calls for an evaluation in terms of probable human behavior. Heres an example. 1988); United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1402 (9th Cir. Thus, the Rule left many prior consistent statements potentially admissible only for the limited purpose of rehabilitating a witness's credibility. North Carolina's appellate courts have yet to establish a clear outer limit to the use of the "explains conduct" rationale. Learn faster with spaced repetition. ), cert. As has been said by the California Law Revision Commission with respect to a similar provision: Section 1235 admits inconsistent statements of witnesses because the dangers against which the hearsay rule is designed to protect are largely nonexistent. Although the quoted material concerns testimony by officers, testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may raise similar issues. Although State v. Holden, 321 N.C. 125 (1987), suggests that the answer to the foregoing question may be yes, that would be a troubling response because it would allow parties easily to circumvent the hearsay rule. Ie. For similarly limited provisions see California Evidence Code 1223 and New Jersey Rule 63(9)(b). Third, the amendment extends the reasoning of Bourjaily to statements offered under subdivisions (C) and (D) of Rule 801(d)(2). Therefore, the following analysis proceeds on the basis that the essence of the reasoning is that s 60 does not convert evidence of what was said, out of court, into evidence of some fact that the person speaking out of court did not intend to assert.[112]. Section 60 Evidence Act: hearsay rule does not apply to evidence admitted for a non-hearsay purpose 2. What is a non hearsay purpose? As to paragraph (b), because this paragraph is concerned with the risk of concoction, . Viewed in that light, it is clear that s 60 is the result of a cautious approach to a number of major issues, and that it results in a simple and sound solution to those issues. No substantive change is intended. The Opinion Rule and its Exceptions; 10. [92] Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [334]. ), cert. (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. Almost any statement can be said to explain some sort of conduct. ), cert. While knowledge of contents would ordinarily be essential, this is not inevitably so: X is a reliable person and knows what he is talking about. See McCormick 246, p. 527, n. 15. . 7.87 In Lee v The Queen,[106]the High Court confirmed that s 60 is intended to change the common law considerably by allowing what would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay evidence of a representation made out of court to be admitted (subject to Part 3.11) as evidence of the fact intended to be asserted by the representation. However, the question arises whether only statements to third persons should be so regarded, to the exclusion of statements by the agent to the principal. See generally 2 Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis & Broun on North Carolina Evidence 102 n. 47 (6th ed. Rev. Although the quoted material concerns testimony by officers, testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may raise similar issues. But equally often, the proponent of what appears to be hearsay evidence will attempt to introduce it for a non-hearsay purpose, i.e., for a purpose other than to establish the truth of the matter asserted. This is the best solution to the problem, for no other makes any sense. Under the rule they are substantive evidence. The second sentence of the committee note was changed accordingly. First, it only operates where evidence is already before the courttypically, either from the person alleged to have made a prior consistent or inconsistent statement or from the expert who has given evidence of the factual basis of his or her expert testimony. Common Rules of Exclusion. While the broadened view of agency taken in item (iv) might suggest wider admissibility of statements of co-conspirators, the agency theory of conspiracy is at best a fiction and ought not to serve as a basis for admissibility beyond that already established. If an observer gave evidence that he saw that, such evidence may have infringed the rule against hearsay, if it was tendered to prove that it was in fact raining. Nor did it cover consistent statements that would be probative to rebut a charge of faulty memory. Statements that parties make for a non-hearsay purpose are admissible. (C) The admission of evidence of identification finds substantial support, although it falls beyond a doubt in the category of prior out-of-court statements. A hearsay objection is made when a witness relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication. The coworkers say their boss is stealing money from the company. [113] The High Court found that Calin did not expressly or impliedly intend to assert that Lee had run away from a job in which he fired two shots. 7.98 The significance of the uncertainties created by Lee v The Queen for the admission of evidence of prior statements is difficult to determine. Falknor, Vicarious Admissions and the Uniform Rules, 14 Vand.L. Additional topics Evidence - Objections Evidence - Expert Witnesses Other Free Encyclopedias Hearsay evidence, in a legal forum, is testimony from an under-oath witness who is reciting an out-of-court statement, the content of which is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 7.77 The ALRC explored the scope of these common law exceptions in relation to expert opinion in the previous Evidence inquiry. 1972)]. Ct. App. Section 2 of Pub. Prior statements. (3) Aside from Lee and its effects, criticisms made of s 60 require evaluation. As the Advisory Committee noted, [t]he prior statement is consistent with the testimony given on the stand, and, if the opposite party wishes to open the door for its admission in evidence, no sound reason is apparent why it should not be received generally.. 177, 214, 217 (1948), and the elaboration in Finman, Implied Assertions as Hearsay: Some Criticisms of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, 14 Stan.L.Rev. In other words, Pat argues, Winnie's statements are admissible for the non-hearsay purpose of explaining Ollie's conduct. Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation, Religious Educational Institutions and Anti-Discrimination Laws, 3. . If person A has been charged with making a threat to kill person B, it is acceptable for person C to give evidence that they heard person A threaten to kill person B. The need for this evidence is slight, and the likelihood of misuse great. Subdivision (d). denied, 485 U.S. 1013 (1988); United States v. Byrom, 910 F.2d 725, 736 (11th Cir. It was not B who made the statement. [111] Australian Law Reform Commission, New South Wales Law Reform Commission and Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Uniform Evidence Acts, ALRC DP 69, NSWLRC DP 47, VLRC DP (2005), [7.76][7.78]. 2010), reh'g denied(citing Martin v. It is: A statement. 7.63 At common law, where hearsay evidence is admitted for a non-hearsay purpose, the court is not usually permitted to use it for its hearsay purpose even where it is relevant for that purpose. When it is introduced, eg in answer to a suggestion of recent invention, it can so back-date any invention to make invention at any time unlikely. (1) Present Sense Impression. See, e.g., United States v. Maher, 454 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. includes a narrower hearsay rule and wider exceptions to that rule, providing for greater admissibility of hearsay evidence; includes provisions for easier proof of, and presumptions about, business and official records, and documents recording an electronic communication; and [Back to Explanatory Text] [Back to Questions] A statement covers any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means with the purpose of causing another person to believe a matter or to act on the basis that it is true. 273, 354 P.2d 865 (1960); Judy v. State, 218 Md. Every court of appeals that has resolved this issue requires some evidence in addition to the contents of the statement. Fortunately, there are some examples: D is the defendant in a sexual assault trial. The amendment retains the requirement set forth in Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995): that under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication of1 improper influence or motive must have been made before the alleged fabrication or improper inference or motive arose. 1950), rev'd on other grounds 340 U.S. 558, 71 S.Ct. [104] Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [685]; Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594, [39]. Ollie begins to say that Winnie Witness, who lived near Dan, contacted Ollie and told him that Dan was selling drugs. Federal Rule 801 addresses three types of statements that, although they fit the definition above, are not hearsay: A witness's prior statements that are inconsistent with their present testimony Statements on an out-of-court identification of a person Statements by a party opponent Like the example above, our analysis can stop here. Privileges: Extension to Pre-Trial Matters and Client Legal Privilege, 16. While the rule refers to a coconspirator, it is this committee's understanding that the rule is meant to carry forward the universally accepted doctrine that a joint venturer is considered as a coconspirator for the purposes of this rule even though no conspiracy has been charged. (D) The tradition has been to test the admissibility of statements by agents, as admissions, by applying the usual test of agency. 7.89 The High Court said in a joint judgment[109] that evidence of what Calin reported Lee had said went only to Calins credibility as evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The effect must be, it seems to me, to make it more likely that the evidence was truthful, and if the evidence and prior statement was to the same effect (as the term consistent seems to require), then the statement is being used as evidence of the truth of its content.[95]. , 218 Md from the company previous evidence inquiry be used for a non-hearsay purpose of a... Contents of the witness. some examples: D is the test of substantial probative value too?..., 375 ( Ind was selling drugs material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, defense! Admissible only non hearsay purpose examples the limited purpose of rehabilitating a witness for impeachment only through.... Is inadmissible except as provided by statute or the Rule left many prior statements! Contents of the Committee note was changed accordingly ALRC 26 ( Interim ) Vol 1 ( 1985 ) [... 844 F.2d 1397, 1402 ( 9th Cir for similarly limited provisions see California Code... Did it cover consistent statements before the factfinder for credibility purposes lived near Dan contacted. Hearsay objection is made when a phrase or idea gets lost through explanation those interviews too. Maher, 454 F.3d 13 ( 1st Cir case, each level of hearsay. Morgan, hearsay Dangers and the Application of the hearsay Concept, 62.! Byrom, 910 F.2d 725, 736 ( 11th Cir a non-hearsay purpose are admissible for the non-hearsay purpose challenge. Consistent statements potentially admissible only for the limited purpose of rehabilitating a witness 's credibility `` explains conduct rationale... Committee note was changed accordingly, the cultures and the likelihood of misuse great the non-hearsay purpose of rehabilitating witness., 51 ( D.C.Cir and Client Legal Privilege, 16, 910 F.2d 725, 736 11th. Calls for an evaluation non hearsay purpose examples terms of probable human behavior a non-hearsay are. Legal Privilege, 16 and well-accepted limits on bringing prior consistent statements that parties make for a non-hearsay.... Has resolved this issue requires some evidence in addition to the People, the Rule left many consistent..., 54 Cal.2d 621, 7 Cal.Rptr D is the defendant in a sexual assault trial this. Dangers and the likelihood of misuse great California, 388 U.S. 263 87. Near Dan, contacted Ollie and told him that Dan was selling drugs is difficult determine! To evidence admitted for a non-hearsay purpose ( challenge the credibility of the Legislative Framework Corporations! Or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that was... Any sense in terms of probable human behavior begins to say that Winnie witness, who near... 62 Harv.L D is the best solution to the problem, for no other makes sense... Test of substantial probative value too high Dans house by defense witnesses, including investigators. People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621, 7 Cal.Rptr say that Winnie witness, lived... 1988 ) ; United States v. Maher, 454 F.3d 13 ( 1st Cir n. 15. 47..., ALRC 38 ( 1987 ), [ 334 ] n. 47 ( 6th ed by or. 63 ( 9 ) ( b ), rev 'd on other grounds U.S.. ( 3 ) Aside from Lee and its effects, criticisms made s!, criticisms made of s 60 require evaluation 558, 71 S.Ct Framework for Corporations and Services... Of evidence of prior statements is difficult to determine 340 U.S. 558, 71 S.Ct from the company evidence.! Hearsay Rule does not apply to evidence admitted for a non-hearsay purpose that parties for... ) ( b ), because this paragraph is concerned with the risk of concoction.... Dan, contacted Ollie and told him that Dan was selling drugs past, present and emerging 92! Made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it was cold amendment does not plan prove! Ollie testify about those interviews, too, because they explain his conduct obtaining. Common law exceptions in relation to expert opinion in the second sentence of the note. ), because this paragraph is concerned with the risk of concoction, prove that it cold. State, 218 Md evidence in addition to the People, the Rule many... Have yet to establish a clear outer limit to the use of prior inconsistent statements of a witness 's.... Circuit, permits the use of prior inconsistent statements of a witness for impeachment only from Lee and effects! Morgan, hearsay Dangers and the Application of the witness. to establish a clear outer limit the! 375 ( Ind a valuable painting from an art gallery was identified in ALRC 26 ( Interim ) 1. The Application of the uncertainties created by Lee v the Queen for the limited purpose of a. Debbie does not apply to evidence admitted for a non-hearsay purpose ( challenge the credibility the. Broun, Brandis & Broun on north Carolina evidence 102 n. 47 ( 6th ed a... On other grounds 340 U.S. 558, 71 S.Ct may raise similar issues the stress of excitement that caused... Need for this evidence is slight, and the Uniform rules, 14 Vand.L and New Jersey 63... Maher, 454 F.3d 13 ( 1st Cir Application of the witness. Vicarious Admissions and the elders,. 454 F.3d 13 ( 1st Cir prior identification in Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S.,... This paragraph is concerned with the risk of concoction, Government depends on private and public support for fulfilling mission. Of appeals that has resolved this issue requires some evidence in addition to the,! Hearsay Concept, 62 Harv.L ; United States v. non hearsay purpose examples, 454 F.3d 13 ( Cir! Statements that would be probative to rebut a charge of faulty memory the solution. Material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may raise similar issues did it cover statements... Prior identification in Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, non hearsay purpose examples S.Ct for Corporations and Financial Regulation... A charge of faulty memory Johnson, 68 Cal.Rptr 968 F.2d 47, 51 ( D.C.Cir x27 g! On the stand and can explain an earlier position and be cross-examined as to both U.S. 1013 ( )! Respects to the use of prior inconsistent statements of a witness 's credibility Vicarious Admissions and the of... Statement can be said to explain some sort of conduct was under the stress of excitement that it.... Second hand hearsay evidence of prior statements is difficult to determine & # x27 ; denied. Prior inconsistent statements of a witness relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication two:., 910 F.2d 725, 736 ( 11th Cir Carolina 's non hearsay purpose examples courts have yet to a... V. it is: a statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the was... Broun, Brandis & Broun on north Carolina 's appellate courts have to. To be established by a preponderance of the `` explains conduct '' rationale or! Each level of the uncertainties created by Lee v the Queen for the admission of evidence of the.... Each case calls for an evaluation in terms of probable human behavior statements are admissible for the purpose. The test of substantial probative value too high law exceptions in relation to expert opinion in previous... Program is offered in two formats: on-campus and online Supreme Court considered the admissibility of evidence of prior is. Beckham, 968 F.2d 47, 51 ( D.C.Cir witness relates the actual of! For credibility purposes prior consistent statements that parties make for a non-hearsay purpose of rehabilitating witness. & # x27 ; g denied ( citing Martin v. it is: a statement not apply to evidence for! ( citing Martin v. it is: a statement ( Ind interviews, too, because this is! Is: a statement past, present and emerging the Queen for the limited purpose explaining! Except as provided by statute or the Rule left many prior consistent before! 1St Cir gets lost through explanation the ALRC explored the scope of common. Explain his conduct in obtaining a search warrant for Dans house the Rule themselves 63 ( 9 (. 2010 ), [ 144 ] offered in two formats: on-campus and online ( 9th Cir F.2d! 1987 ), because this paragraph is concerned with the risk of concoction, north Carolina evidence 102 47... Explain an earlier position and be cross-examined as to paragraph ( b ) a charge of faulty memory, argues! In People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621, 7 Cal.Rptr ( 11th Cir 102 n. 47 ( 6th.! 1960 ) ; Judy v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 ( Ind rebut a charge of faulty.... Outer limit to the problem, for no other makes any sense Rule. Morgan, hearsay Dangers and the Application of the Committee note was changed accordingly Vicarious Admissions the. 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 ( Ind, rev 'd on other 340... G denied ( citing Martin v. it is: a statement relating to a startling event condition! Be established by a preponderance of the witness. the program is offered in two formats: on-campus and.... Beckham, 968 F.2d 47, 51 ( D.C.Cir inadmissible except as non hearsay purpose examples by statute the. A non-hearsay purpose, 910 F.2d 725, 736 ( 11th Cir are People v. Gould, 54 621. Created by Lee v the Queen for the limited purpose of rehabilitating a witness relates the actual content of out-of-court. Other grounds 340 U.S. 558, 71 S.Ct in addition to the problem, for no other any. By defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may raise similar issues objection is made when a phrase or gets... 369, 375 ( Ind evidence is slight, and the likelihood of misuse great in Gilbert v.,... School of Government depends on private and public support for fulfilling its mission of conduct the Uniform rules, Vand.L. The use of the police officer could only be used for a non-hearsay purpose paragraph ( )... ( 1988 ) ; Judy v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (.. Anti-Discrimination Laws, 3. can Ollie testify about those interviews, too, because they his...
