Also known as: not offered for the truth of the matter asserted · not for truth of the matter asserted · nonhearsay · FRE 801(c)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A purpose for which an out-of-court statement is offered that removes the statement from the definition of hearsay. The statement is introduced to establish a fact other than the truth of its contents, such as the effect on the listener, the basis for an expert opinion, or the consistency of a witness's account before a motive to fabricate arose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nyah Ndlovu testified that her supervisor directed her to falsify safety reports. On cross-examination the defense suggested she invented the account only after learning of an internal investigation. Northstar Logistics offered her journal entry written two weeks earlier describing the same directive. The court admitted the entry because it predated the alleged motive and served to show consistency rather than the truth of the supervisor's words.
Nathan Nguyen identified the defendant in a lineup shortly after the robbery. At trial Nguyen could not recall the basis for his identification. The prosecution introduced the lineup officer's testimony about the identification. The court admitted the evidence because it showed the prior identification itself rather than proving the truth of any out-of-court description.
Nia Nkosi, a state forensic analyst, testified that a DNA profile from a crime-scene sample matched the defendant's profile. She relied on a report generated by a private laboratory without calling its analyst. The court permitted the testimony because the report supplied the factual predicate for her independent opinion rather than proving the truth of the laboratory's conclusions.
Nina Nielsen was charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The government introduced a recorded conversation between two alleged co-conspirators discussing shipment details. The court admitted the recording because it supplied context for Nielsen's own later statements rather than proving the truth of the shipment plans described in the call.
A prior consistent statement is admissible when offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the witness recently fabricated testimony or acted from an improper motive. The statement must have been made before the alleged motive arose. The timing requirement ensures the statement serves a rehabilitative purpose rather than proving the truth of its contents.
Supporting sources
No. A prior statement of identification remains admissible even if the witness cannot recall the basis for the identification at trial. The rule requires only that the witness be subject to cross-examination about the statement. The identification itself is offered for a nonhearsay purpose.
…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…
…13–16. (c) For Confrontation Clause purposes, the references to Cellmark in the trial record either were not hearsay or were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Pp. 16–27. (1) Petitioner’s confrontation right was not violated when Lambatos answered “yes” to a question about whether there was a match between the DNA profile “found in semen from…
…against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive." Rule 801 defines prior consistent statements as nonhearsay
Supporting sources
An expert may rely on a report generated by a non-testifying analyst when the report supplies the factual basis for the expert's independent opinion. The report is not offered for the truth of its contents. The expert's opinion is the evidence the jury considers, not the underlying report.
Supporting sources
When a statement is offered for a purpose other than its truth, the Confrontation Clause does not bar its use. The clause targets testimonial statements offered to prove the matter asserted. Proper jury instructions limiting consideration to the nonhearsay purpose prevent constitutional violation.
Supporting sources