Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
54. Is the defendant's testimony about the friend's statement to the neighbor admissible?
A defendant is on trial for knowing possession of a stolen television. The defendant claims that the television was a gift from a friend, who has disappeared. The defendant seeks to testify that he was present when the friend told her neighbor that the television had been given to the friend by her mother.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
When an out-of-court statement is introduced for any purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, there is no need to cross-examine the declarant, so the statement is not hearsay. One example of this includes statements offered to show the effect on the listener, such as knowledge. Another example is when statements are offered as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind. Statements that reflect directly (as opposed to circumstantially) on the declarant's state of mind are hearsay but are admissible under the FRE 803(3) exception. Many courts have used this «state of mind exception» to admit all declarations that reflect on the declarant's state of mind without regard to the fact that they could simply be admitted as non-hearsay. As a practical matter, the distinction makes little difference as the admissibility is the same.
Statements affecting an interest in property are contained in FRE 803(15), which states, «A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document's purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.» Thus, this Rule requires the statement to be contained in a document.
C is correct. Out-of-court statements offered to show the effect on the listener, including attributing knowledge or belief, are not hearsay. Here, the defendant is offering the friend's statement as evidence that the defendant thought that the friend owned the television (i.e., that it had not been stolen). Because the defendant is charged with knowing possession of a stolen television, his state of mind is relevant. If the defendant had heard the friend say that the television was hers, that evidence would be relevant to the defendant's state of mind regardless of the truth of the statement. Therefore, the friend's out-of-court statement is not hearsay.
A is incorrect. The statement would be hearsay if it were offered to prove that that the television had been given to the friend by her mother, and as such, that the friend owned it. But the defendant is offering the friend's statement as evidence that the defendant thought the friend owned the television (i.e., that it had not been stolen). Because the defendant is charged with knowing possession of a stolen television, his state of mind is relevant.
B is incorrect. There is no requirement that a statement offered to prove its effect on the person who heard it must be corroborated. In this case, the defendant is offering the friend's statement as relevant evidence that the defendant thought that the friend owned the television.
D is incorrect. Even if an exception were required here, the exception for statements affecting an interest in property would not be applicable, because FRE 803(15) requires that the statement be contained in a document. Here the statement was oral.