The rule against hearsay provides that a statement made out of court may not be admitted into evidence in order to prove the validity of the assertion made. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide the definition, limitations, and exceptions to the rule against hearsay in Article VIII, rules 801-807.
As concerns the first scenario, Quincy’s physician is on the witness stand and is asked by Edward’s attorney whether or not Quincy told him that he fell because he lost his equilibrium as a result of dizziness. This is not hearsay for a number of reasons. Firstly, under rule 801(d)2, it is a statement offered against an opposing party and was made by the individual. Even if this were not the case, it would potentially fall under several exceptions to Hearsay as provided in rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly parts (3) then existing, mental, emotional, or physical condition; and (4) statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Essentially, as the present controversy is related to the medical diagnosis and treatment of Quincy, what he told his physician about the circumstances of the incident are directly related to the issue at hand, are not hearsay, and properly would be admitted into the transcript of the trial.
As regards the second statement made by Quincy’s housekeeper, this too should not be considered hearsay. The housekeeper testified that Quincy had told her “my back was really killing me after the fall. The pain was excruciating. I thought it would be a miracle if I ever stood up again.” This is not hearsay as a result of Federal Rules of Evidence rule 803 (1), (2), and (3). Firstly, it is likely that this statement was a present sense impression. The statement was seemingly spontaneous and described the present state that Quincy was in. The present sense impression exception requires that the statement be made contemporaneously or immediately after the events or conditions. With the fact pattern provided, it is difficult to determine the time lapse between the events and the statement. The nature of the statement made by Quincy to the maid may have also been an excited utterance. By excited utterance we mean to say that the statement was a result of an unplanned reaction to a startling event, and injury and pain would likely be a solid basis for a startling event. Finally, it might also be permitted under hearsay exception (3) then existing, mental, emotional, or physical condition. Ultimately, this evidence should be admitted, as it seems to fall under known exceptions to hearsay.
Finally, in the scenario of Peters and Daniels, Barnett supposedly made a prior statement that contradicts his current testimony at the trial. Rule 801(1)(d)(1)(A) provides the basis for why this statement may not be hearsay. Essentially, Barnett, the declarant witness is subject to cross-examination, and it is inconsistent with the declarant’s current testimony. (A) requires that the statement must have been made under oath or otherwise under penalty of perjury, it is unclear whether or not Barnett’s statement regarding Franklin was ever in a record that could have subjected him to the penalties of perjury. If it was, then it is admissible, if not, than it is inadmissible.
Bibliography:
Peggy Karley, Joanne Banker Hames and Paul A. Sukys, ”The Courts and Jurisdiction”
in Civil Litigation (Clifton Park: Delmar, 2012)
