Also known as: rule against hearsay · hearsay rule · hearsay evidence rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that generally excludes out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The rule applies unless the statement qualifies under an exception or exclusion or satisfies the residual exception when trustworthiness and necessity are shown.
Roland Rhodes faces trial for assault. The prosecution offers a transcript of a prior deposition given by a witness who died before trial. The court admits the transcript because the declarant is unavailable and the deposition satisfies the former-testimony exception under the rule against hearsay.
Ronald Reed sues Rising Sun Electronics for product defect. A manager testifies that an employee told him a customer reported the device overheated. The court admits the testimony only after confirming each layer independently satisfies an exception to the rule against hearsay.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Raymond Ramos seeks damages after a workplace injury. He offers a safety inspector's written report made weeks earlier that lacks a standard exception. The court admits the report under the residual exception because it carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and is more probative than other available evidence.
Regina Robinson stands trial for robbery. The state offers a recorded police interview of an absent witness describing the crime. The court excludes the statement because it is testimonial and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Rina Rahman is prosecuted for domestic assault. Officers testify to statements a visibly injured victim made during an emergency call describing the ongoing attack. The court admits the statements because they are nontestimonial and therefore not subject to the confrontation bar under the rule against hearsay.
Rajesh Rao defends a murder charge by offering reliable third-party confessions excluded by state hearsay rules. The court admits the evidence because rigid application of the rule against hearsay would deprive the defendant of a meaningful opportunity to present a defense.
The rule permits admission when the declarant is unavailable and the testimony was given at a prior proceeding or deposition under circumstances allowing cross-examination. Each layer of any combined statement must independently satisfy an exception.
Supporting sources
Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if every constituent statement conforms to an exception or exclusion. Failure of any single layer bars the entire composite statement.
Supporting sources
A statement not covered by Rules 803 or 804 may be admitted if it carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness after considering the totality of circumstances and is more probative on the point than other reasonably obtainable evidence.
Supporting sources
Testimonial statements by an unavailable declarant are barred unless the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Nontestimonial statements remain subject only to the ordinary hearsay rules.
Supporting sources
Yes. Rigid exclusion that prevents a defendant from presenting reliable evidence of third-party guilt can violate the right to present a defense when the combined rules deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
Supporting sources
…opinion) ("[A]ccomplices' confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule").[^maj-7] IV Our case law has been largely consistent with these two principles. Our leading early decision, for example, involved a deceased witness's prior trial testimony.…