31. The police officer's testimony about the deceased man's statement is

A Dead Man's Statute attempts to equalize opportunities of showing proof in litigation that involves a decedent and a survivor where the suit's subject matter is about a transaction or event that occurred while they were both alive. In its most extreme form, it prevents a survivor from testifying at all about the transaction between him and the decedent. However, an increasing number of states have enacted more liberal Dead Man's Statutes, which typically permit the survivor to testify, but equalize his advantage by allowing the decedent's estate to introduce hearsay statements made by the decedent or other evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible. There is no federal Dead Man's Statute, meaning the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) do not directly limit a survivor's ability to testify against a decedent.

The FRE defines hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the current trial or hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

A declaration made by a declarant during or soon after a startling event is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, called an excited utterance. The declaration must be made under the stress of excitement produced by the startling event. The declaration must concern the immediate facts of the startling occurrence. Fed. R. Evid. 803(2).

In a prosecution for homicide or civil action, a statement made by the now-unavailable declarant while believing his death was imminent that concerns the cause or circumstances of what he believed to be his impending death is admissible as a dying declaration. Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(2). The declarant need not actually die, but he must be unavailable at the time the statement is offered.

A trial judge has broad discretion to exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.

B is correct. The deceased man's statement to the police officer is an out-of-court statement that is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted — that the deceased man loaned the defendant $10,000. As such, it is hearsay, and it is inadmissible because it does not meet the requirements for any other exception to the hearsay rule.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the testimony is inadmissible, it is not because the unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value. FRE 403 allows evidence that is otherwise admissible to be excluded if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. However, here, the evidence is not admissible because it is hearsay without any exception, and the analysis does not need to reach this balancing test.

C is incorrect. The excited utterance exception does not apply to the testimony regarding the decedent's statement, which was about the loan the defendant owed to him, not about the immediate facts of the startling occurrence as required by FRE 803(2).

D is incorrect. The dying declaration exception also does not apply to the testimony regarding the decedent's statement because he was referencing the defendant's unpaid loan, not the cause or circumstances of what he believed his impending death as required by FRE 804(b)(2).