When Is Hearsay Inadmissible in Court?
The issue of when is hearsay admissible in court can be a tricky one to handle. The question often hinges on the type of information being provided. It may be a statement from a business or public record or it could be incriminating conduct of the person making the statement. There are also exceptions to this rule, such as in the case of a spontaneous statement or when the statement is a part of a medical or business record.
Public records
Whether a public record is inadmissible is a question of law. A court must decide whether the record was made in the regular course of business and, if so, whether it was made before the beginning of the proceeding. If the answer is yes, it is prima facie evidence of facts.
The general rule is that public records are admissible in court. Public records are those documents that are made by a public office. Records can include statements of facts, opinions, conclusions, and conclusions of causes and effects.
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. First, the rule applies to records that are made in good faith. Second, records may be admissible when the duty to make the document was imposed by law. Finally, there are some exceptions to the rule when the record is a statement of fact. For example, if the record is a statement of the defendant’s criminal conduct, it is inadmissible.
One exception is the Murray exception. This exemption is based on the guaranty of trustworthiness inherent in a public record. In particular, a record may be inadmissible if the guaranty is weakened by the presence of hearsay.
The White case addressed the hearsay rule as it applied to business records. Its foundation was faulty. However, it did deal with the broader issue of how the weight of a record is affected by the personal knowledge of the maker or entrant.
Business records
In a trial, the admission of business records is a critical component. As a result, it can be difficult to resist the introduction of these documents. However, before doing so, it is important to understand how the rule of hearsay applies to business records.
First, a record is admissible as a business record when it is prepared in the course of regularly conducted business activity. This includes any type of business or profession. The only requirement is that the record was made at or near the time of the matter recorded.
Next, the record must be based on information supplied by a person with knowledge of the matter. For example, an emergency room doctor’s opinions are part of a report of a patient’s condition.
Finally, the document must be reliable under the rules of evidence. A business record will not be admitted if it was created merely to express an opinion. It also won’t qualify under the rule of business record if it was made for casual purposes or was prepared by someone who did not have a duty to make a record.
One exception to the rule of business record is that a document is admissible if the records custodian has no personal knowledge of the preparation. In order to establish this, the proponent of the record must establish sufficient indicia of reliability.
Medical records
If you’re a medical professional, you’re likely well aware of the hearsay rule. However, the rule’s purported exclusions are frequently overshadowed by its positives. For example, statements from a child to an adult about their past or current conditions are not barred by the rule, and the rule’s more benign cousins – statements about the pain and discomfort of a medical procedure or diagnosis – may be used to support the claim that you’re providing the patient with the best possible medical care.
The rules are complicated, but the most interesting part is in the details. As with most legal proceedings, the court must consider the facts of the case to determine what, if any, a statement is admissible, and must then weigh the evidence to reach the same conclusion. In addition to the aforementioned rules, a statement is only as good as the circumstances surrounding the event that it was made. This is especially true in the case of a declaration from a child, who may be trying to seek treatment from an unlicensed provider or simply be unable to articulate his concerns. A stipulation limiting the use of testimonial statements to a time limited recitation of a matter of general interest, or to a doctor-patient relationship may be worth a shot.
The same is true of the rule’s most significant exceptions. One is a statement made to a non-medical provider to inform them of your concerns; another is the rule’s most notable exception.
Spontaneous statements
The hearsay rule applies to both criminal and civil trials. It is meant to prevent defendants from being disadvantaged by the testimony of witnesses. However, the hearsay rule does not remove the requirement that the statements be made by a witness who has firsthand knowledge.
When it comes to admissibility of hearsay evidence, there are several exceptions. These rules are set forth in Evidence Code 1200. Each exception has a specific wording, which is based on the purpose and nature of the hearsay rule.
One exception is the ancient documents rule. The document must be ancient enough to have been prepared before January 1, 1998. In addition, it must be a document prepared in the scope of employment or an agency.
Another exception is the public records exception. This is based on the theory that documents are not hearsay if the record mentions the matter. Even if the document was prepared before the cut-off date, the record may still have changed after the cut-off.
Statements that were made by authorized spokespersons, such as law enforcement agents or employees of an employer, may also be admissible. Other examples include affidavits and reports of forensic analysis.
Among the other common law exceptions to the hearsay rule are those that apply to self-incriminating statements and declarations against interest. A statement against interest is a statement that harms the person making it.
Incriminating conduct of the declarant
When hearsay is admissible in a criminal case, the judge must consider whether the statement is corroborated by evidence. In addition to determining that the statement is accurate, the judge must also assess the reliability of the witness and the trustworthiness of the statement itself.
The judge should consider the location of the statement, the spontaneity of the declarant, and the timing of the declaration. Other factors may be relevant as well. For example, the judge may take into account the age of the declarant, his/her relationship with the witness, and whether the declarant is likely to be liable to other parties for misrepresentation.
Statements made by a bystander or police officer may be admissible in court. For example, a victim of a drive-by shooting made a spontaneous utterance in the moments after the event that was later used as evidence.
Statements made by a declarant who believed in imminent death are admissible, unless they are specifically denied. However, statements that are unequivocal in denial of crime are not.
Aside from the obvious, the Supreme Court looked to the content of the question asked. This is a good indicator of the primary purpose of the interrogation.
While this is not the only thing the judge should consider, it is a good place to start. Judges should also take into consideration the reliability of the evidence offered, the timing of the statement, and the relationship between the declarant and the witness.
Exceptions to the hearsay rule
There are some exceptions to the hearsay rule. The most obvious is that a statement that is not hearsay is admissible. This is particularly true in criminal cases.
A deposition at trial is another example of an exception to the rule. If the judge finds that the statement is relevant to the case, it may be cited. However, an objection must be filed within twenty-one days of the date the deposition was taken. The reasons for relying on the statement must be included in the court’s findings.
An out-of-court statement may also be an exception to the rules of evidence. As with a deposition, the jury might have to take the statement at face value. In the criminal case, the party-oponent need not contend that it is against the declarant’s proprietary interest. But, as with any other type of evidence, a jury’s unfavorable reaction to the statement might be fair and unjustified.
Moreover, the tiniest of exceptions to the hearsay rule is that some statements are not actually hearsay. For example, a deposition that is not the result of a witness’s official duty is not hearsay under Section 801(d)(2).
There are many other exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of them, the Availability of Declarant Immaterial, is applicable to hospital records. Another, the Availability of Declarant, is applicable to business records.
While there is no statute that specifically addresses the best way to obtain a statement, the common law is clear in its requirements. To make the most of the rule, lawyers need to be aware of which statutory exemptions are applicable and how they apply.