Also known as: nonhearsay · non hearsay
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of out-of-court statements excluded from the hearsay definition under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) when offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted or when they satisfy enumerated conditions such as prior consistent statements or party-opponent admissions.
Neville Norton testified that he saw the defendant near the warehouse on the night of the theft. Defense counsel implied on cross that Norton invented the account after learning he faced his own theft charges. The prosecution then offered Norton's written statement made to police two days after the theft but before any charges against him arose. The court admitted the statement as non-hearsay to rebut the charge of recent fabrication.
Nora Nash identified the robber from a lineup two weeks after the robbery. At trial she could not recall the basis for her identification but remained available for cross-examination. The prosecution offered her earlier lineup statement. The court admitted the statement as non-hearsay even though Nash lacked present recollection of her reasons.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nestor Navarro and Nadia Novak were charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The government offered a recorded conversation in which Navarro told a third party that Novak would handle distribution logistics. The court admitted the statement as non-hearsay because it was made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Norman Nash, a forensic analyst, testified that a DNA profile generated by an outside laboratory matched the defendant. The profile itself was not offered for its truth but only to show the basis for Nash's independent conclusion. The court admitted the testimony as non-hearsay because the underlying data served a non-truth purpose in the expert's analysis.
A prior consistent statement is non-hearsay when offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive, provided the statement was made before the alleged motive arose. The witness must testify and be subject to cross-examination.
Supporting sources
No. A prior statement of identification remains admissible as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(C) even if the witness cannot recall the basis for the identification, so long as the witness is subject to cross-examination about the statement.
Supporting sources
The prior consistent statement must predate the alleged motive to fabricate or improper influence. Statements made after the motive arose do not rebut the charge and therefore remain hearsay.
Supporting sources
Statements offered against an opposing party qualify as non-hearsay when made by the party in an individual or representative capacity, adopted by the party, made by an authorized agent, or made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Supporting sources
…concluded that the trial court’s finding that a conspiracy existed was not clearly erroneous. Pp. 184–188. 3. The admission of nonhearsay evidence of a co-conspirator’s statement does not violate the Confrontation Clause. Tennessee v. Street , 471 U. S. 409. Pp. 188–189. 4. In determining the admissibility of a…