Also known as: hearsay objections · hearsay rule objection
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary challenge asserting that a proffered out-of-court statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is therefore inadmissible unless it satisfies an exception or exclusion. The objection forces the proponent to establish that the statement is not hearsay or that a rule removes the bar. The rule of completeness permits related statements to be introduced at the same time over a hearsay objection.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Urban Maritime introduced part of an incident report blaming the charterer for improper container securing. Premier Marine sought to introduce the remaining pages and a follow-up email showing the vessel crew altered the stow plan. The court permitted the additional material at the same time because fairness required the jury to consider the full context even though the added statements would otherwise trigger a hearsay objection.
During plea negotiations the government and Mezzanatto agreed that statements made by Mezzanatto could be used at trial for impeachment. When the government later offered those statements, Mezzanatto raised a hearsay objection. The Court held the agreement enforceable and overruled the objection because parties may validly waive hearsay objections by stipulation.
Rainey offered testimony recounting an out-of-court statement made by the defense expert six months after the crash. The defense raised a hearsay objection. The Court overruled the objection because the statement was offered only to show what the expert had said, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, so it fell outside the hearsay definition.
The government offered a transcript of recorded conversations involving Anderson. The defense raised a hearsay objection and argued that only the actual participant could authenticate the transcript. The court deferred ruling on the objection until the recording agent testified that the transcript accurately reflected the tape, after which the hearsay objection was resolved by voice identification.
The objection succeeds when the conduct is intended as an assertion and is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In the refinery explosion case the thumbs-up gesture after reading the gauge was treated as assertive conduct because its timing and direction indicated an intended communication about safe pressure levels. Without evidence of intent the conduct would fall outside the hearsay definition.
Supporting sources
Yes. When one party introduces part of a statement the adverse party may require introduction of related parts or statements at the same time even if those additional statements would otherwise be hearsay. The fairness principle overrides the hearsay objection to prevent a misleading impression from a truncated presentation.
…of course, have been entitled to a limiting instruction pursuant to Rule 105 had they requested it. [^maj-19]: Nor would a hearsay objection have been availing. Although the question called for Rainey to testify to an out-of-court statement, that statement was not offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801(c).…
…(CA9 1971). And although hearsay is inadmissible except under certain specific exceptions, we have held that agreements to waive
…was required to properly authenticate the transcript. However, the defense conceded that it would no longer have any hearsay objections
Supporting sources
A statement is exempt when offered against an opposing party and satisfies one of the conditions in Rule 801(d)(2). Direct statements by the party in an individual capacity, authorized statements, adopted statements, and coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy all qualify. Each category removes the statement from the hearsay definition entirely.
Supporting sources
The proponent must show the statement was made for and was reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements describing symptoms and their cause made to a treating physician during a clinical visit satisfy the exception even if the declarant is available to testify.
Supporting sources