Also known as:FRE 805 · Fed. R. Evid. 805 · Federal Rule of Evidence 805 · hearsay within hearsay
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A rule of evidence providing that hearsay within hearsay is admissible if each layer of the combined statements satisfies an independent exception to the hearsay rule.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Multiple Layers in Insurance Dispute
Everett called neighbor Charles to testify that Everett said the insurance adjuster told him a company investigator had reported the fire chief's preliminary opinion that the fire looked intentionally set. Pacific Indemnity objected on hearsay grounds. The court admitted the testimony because the fire chief's opinion qualified as a present sense impression, the investigator's report fit a business record exception, the adjuster's statement to Everett met another exception, and Everett's report to Charles satisfied a final exception.
Agency Statement with Nested Report
A director of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center stated that Mr. Poos had reported seeing Sophie the wolf bite a child. The center objected that the director lacked personal knowledge of the bite itself. The court admitted the statement because the director's account of Poos's report qualified as an admission by a party-opponent and Poos's underlying statement rested on his own firsthand observation rather than further hearsay.
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.588 F.2d 626 (1978)
On March 23, 1973, three-year-old Daniel Mahlandt was sent by his mother to retrieve his older brother from a neighbor's home on an adjoining street. His path took him along a walkway next to the Poos residence, where a five-foot chain-link fence separated the walkway from the area in which the wolf Sophie was chained with a six-foot chain.
Sophie was an eleven-month-old wolf born at the St. Louis Zoo and later transferred to the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. Kenneth Poos, the Center's Director of Education, had been keeping Sophie at his home to take her to schools and institutions for educational programs about wolves. The evening before the incident, Sophie had jumped the fence and attacked a beagle running along the fence.
A neighbor who was ill in bed heard a child's screams, went to his window, and saw a boy lying on his back within the enclosure with a wolf straddling him. Within about fifteen seconds the neighbor saw seventeen-year-old Clarke Poos run around the house, get the wolf off the boy, and carry the child away. Clarke found Daniel lying inside the enclosure about three feet from the fence, with Sophie standing back the length of her chain and wailing. Daniel's mother reported that Clarke told her a wolf had gotten Danny and he was dying, though Clarke denied making that statement. Kenneth Poos arrived home while Daniel and his mother were still in the kitchen.
Within an hour after arriving home, Poos went to Washington University and left a note on the door of Center president Owen Sexton stating that Sophie had bitten a child that came into the backyard. Later that same day Poos found Sexton at the Tyson Research Center and told him that Sophie had bitten a child that day. A meeting of the directors of the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, Inc. was held on April 4, 1973, at which Mr. Poos was not present. The minutes of that meeting recorded a great deal of discussion about the legal aspects of the incident of Sophie biting the child.
Daniel sustained lacerations of the face, left thigh, left calf, and right thigh, along with abrasions and bruises of the abdomen and chest. No witness saw or knew how Daniel was injured, and examinations of the fence and the wounds raised questions about whether the injuries were caused by the fence rather than by the wolf. The case was tried to a jury in federal district court, which returned a verdict for the defendants. The trial judge had excluded the note, the oral statement to Sexton, and the reference in the corporate minutes on the ground that none of the declarants had personal knowledge of the underlying facts. The matter reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on appeal from those three evidentiary rulings.
When does hearsay within hearsay become admissible under Rule 805?
Each layer of the combined statements must independently satisfy a hearsay exception or exclusion. The rule does not permit admission merely because outer layers qualify. Courts examine every transmission separately for reliability guarantees such as excited utterance or business records.
Supporting sources
What happens if one layer in a hearsay chain fails to qualify?
The entire composite statement is excluded. Rule 805 requires conformity at every level rather than allowing stronger outer statements to bootstrap a defective inner one. This prevents admission of unreliable multiple-level hearsay.
Supporting sources
Does Rule 805 apply to statements offered as party admissions?
Yes. A party admission may cover the outer layer but any nested statement by a non-party must still meet its own exception. The rule treats each component separately even when one layer qualifies as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2).
Supporting sources
How do courts handle the middle layer in a three-statement chain?
The middle transmission must independently fit an exception such as present sense impression or excited utterance. Routine reports made days later without excitement or business duty usually fail. Failure at this level blocks admission of the whole statement.
Supporting sources
…
rule
, it should be. He feels that is mandated by Rules 805 and 403.
Rule 805
recites, in effect, that a statement containing
hearsay within hearsay
is admissible if each part of the statement falls
within
an exception to the
hearsay
rule
.
Rule 805
, however, deals only with
hearsay
exceptions. A statement based on the personal knowledge…
EvidencePresentation of evidence · Objections and offers of proofNEXTGENIntermediate