State v. Wilson, 121 Or App 460, 855 P2d 657 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Whether child is old enough to understand that questions are part of medical exam is based on circumstances, not chronological age of child. The Federal Rules also include a general catchall or residual exception ( Rule 807 ), which makes hearsay admissible when it has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, is the best evidence available on a point, and admitting it serves the interests of justice. When offered as investigatory background the evidence is not hearsay. Div. Although this testimony suggests that plaintiff required surgery for his injuries, it more directly goes to the effects of the recommendations on plaintiff namely, that he had not yet followed through with surgery because of the risks entailed and the other treatment he was receiving for an unrelated illness, but that he would consider undergoing surgery in the future.4 Defense counsel ably countered this testimony on cross-examination and closing by pointing out that no surgery was scheduled. These statements come in, however, under the "state of mind" exception if made at the time in which the declarants state of mind is relevant. For example, if a trial witness such as a law enforcement officer attempted to testify about what an eyewitness at the scene of the crime said that he or she saw, and that statement was offered to establish that the events transpired as the witness reported, the statement would be inadmissible hearsay unless another statute or rule authorized the admission of the statement. N: STOP State v. Engweiler, 118 Or App 132, 846 P2d 1163 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Statement regarding intent of declarant to engage in action is not evidence of likely action by another person. Rule 801(d)(1)(c) It's a statement that is not hearsay. 30 (2011) (officers testimony about where another witness told him the gun could be found was not hearsay, because it was offered to explain officers subsequent actions of notifying his supervisor and locating the gun); State v. Elkins, 210 N.C. App. 545 (2011) (statements were not hearsay because they were offered to show officers subsequent action); State v. Banks, 210 N.C. App. 802. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him." See State v. Banks, 210 N.C. App. 801(c)). See, e.g., State v. Steele, 260 N.C. App. See also annotations under ORS 41.670, 41.680, 41.690, 41.840, 41.870 and 41.900 in permanent edition. WebIf a statement is offered to show its effect on the listener, it will generally not be hearsay. Posted: 20 Dec 2019. 4. State v. Jackson, 187 Or App 679, 69 P3d 722 (2003), Appellate review of trial court's findings regarding circumstances of statement is for supporting evidence in record, but appellate review of trial court's legal conclusion that statement is or is not excited utterance uses error of law standard. Such statements may be relevant in other contexts as a circumstance under which the later acted or as bearing upon the likelihood of later disputed conduct, e.g., providing a motive or reason for later disputed conduct. State v. Newby, 97 Or App 598, 777 P2d 994 (1989), Sup Ct review denied, Where patient's statements to physician about defendant's presence in her home, his abusive conduct, and her resulting fears communicated to physician ongoing cause of patient's situational depression and were used to diagnose and treat patient's illness, statements were admissible under this section. this Court does not believe fall under the cited hearsay exceptions, the People would seek to admit them for their effect on the listener, and not to the truth of the matter asserted. There is an exception to that rule when the witness testifies that he/she (or another) did something because of what WebSec. Non-hearsay use effect on the listener Hearsay is defined as a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while. 8-3. Therefore, some statements are not objectionable as hearsay . Hearsay is any statement made by the declarant at a time or place other than while he or she is testifying at the trial or hearing that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. WebThis is not hearsay. Sleigh v. Jenny Craig Weight Loss Centres, Inc., 161 Or App 262, 984 P2d 891 (1999), modified 163 Or App 20, 988 P2d 916 (1999), Testimony of mother recounting statement made by three-year-old victim to mother about sexual attacks by defendant were admissible as exception to hearsay rule allowing complaint of sexual misconduct by prosecuting witnesses; it is unnecessary for child victim to testify as precondition for admission of child's complaint of sexual misconduct. Accordingly, the statements did not constitute impermissible opinion evidence. by: Ryan Scott December 16, 2016 one comment. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors040.html . Rule 801 establishes which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are not. Point denied.); State v. Paul B., 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 (Conn.App. WebThe Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted by order of the Supreme Court on Nov. 20, 1972, transmitted to Congress by the Chief Justice on Feb. 5, 1973, and to have become effective on July 1, 1973. Even if it were hearsay, it would, however, be within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, FRE 803(3). 8C-801(a). The plaintiffs expert in James opined that plaintiffs CT scan showed a disc bulge, whereas the defendants expert opined that there was no disc bulge shown on the CT scan. 445, 456-57 (App. 801-807. 803(4). This page was last modified on December 17, 2016, at 16:31. We first turn to defendants contention that the trial court erred when itallowed plaintiff to testify that Dr.s Vingan and Arginteanu had recommended that plaintiff undergo surgery. for non-profit, educational, and government users. Jones's statements during the interrogation were made in response to specific questions by Officer Paiva, and the text of those questions was therefore helpful to understand the full context of Jones's answers. increasing citizen access. Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute. For example, a patient complains to their doctor (803(4)), and the doctor writes down the complaint in a medical record (803(6)), which frightens a nurse and causes him to run to tell an orderly (803(2)), who writes another medical record (803(6)), which is introduced as evidence.
State v. Wilson, 20 Or App 553, 532 P2d 825 (1975), Victim's initial communication with police, consisting of five-minute telephone conversation, was "spontaneous exclamation" within exception to hearsay rule. State v. Vosika, 83 Or App 298, 731 P2d 449 (1987), Testimony of two physicians, including victim's identification of defendant as person who had sexually abused her, was admissible as statement for medical diagnosis or treatment because physician would reasonably rely on statements and record supports finding that victim understood she was being interviewed and examined for diagnosis and treatment. The court also determined that each of the allegations in the statement was supported by testimony from prior witnesses and, thus, was supported by evidence already in the record. 137 (2012); State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343 (1989). https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_40.460. Rule 801 allows, as nonhearsay, the entire category of verbal acts and verbal parts of an act, in which the statement itself affects the legal rights of the parties or is a circumstance bearing on conduct affecting their rights. G.S. Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial, appeal from a Temporary Extreme Risk Protective Order (TERPO) and Final Extreme Risk Protective Order (FERPO), The Court Reconsiders the Appropriate Standard to Evaluate the Admissibility of Expert Evidence. Statements or writings offered to corroborate a witnesss testimony are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and are therefore not excluded by Rule 801. ORS Written, oral, or nonverbal communication is a statement subject to the hearsay rules only if the communication is intended as an assertion. See G.S. State v. Hobbs, 218 Or App 298, 179 P3d 682 (2008), Sup Ct review denied, To offer particulars of statement, state must identify specifically which hearsay statements it will offer as evidence. (c) Hearsay. Confrontation Clause?There is no confrontation clause issue when statements are admitted under the not for the truth of the matter rationale, because by their very nature these statements are not considered testimonial and therefore they fall outside the scope of what is protected by the clause. Graham, Michael H., Definition of Hearsay, Fed.R.Evid. It is just a semantic distinction. Div. = effect on listener (gets in to show notice provided to Sal) I just cleared some gunk = effect on listener: offered to show that the boss, Sal, had notice that there may have been gunk on the line (does not get in for the truth that there was gunk in the line, only that Sal had notice.) See, e.g., State v. McQueen, 324 N.C. 118 (1989) (question that a companion asked the defendant you dont remember killing a state trooper? was inadmissible hearsay since it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted: namely, that the defendant had no recollection of the killing); State v. Marlow, 334 N.C. 273 (1993) (Clearly, Horton's oral assertion that he told Howell not to come back around. Lepire v. Motor Vehicles Div., 47 Or App 67, 613 P2d 1084 (1980), Declarations of rape victim identifying her attacker that were made more than hour after attack were admissible under "spontaneous exclamation" exception to hearsay rule. 158 (2016) (victims' statements to officer were admissible to corroborate admitted statements to health care personnel who treated them at the time of the assaults); State v. Royster, 237 N.C. App. See, e.g., State v. Mitchell, 135 N.C. App. (b) The Exceptions. 177 (2000) (The trial court admitted the written statement not as substantive evidence, but for the limited purpose of corroborative evidence only, which does not constitute hearsay.); State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268 (1990) (statements about what child reported were admissible to corroborate mothers testimony); State v. Riddle, 316 N.C. 152 (1986) (Collins' testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted [] but was offered merely to prove that Pamela had made a statement to this effect to Collins. Rule 802 pro-vides that hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under a prescribed hearsay exception. 617 (1999) (inmates command to the defendant to leave or hurry was not hearsay: [d]irectives, such as those here, are not hearsay because they are simply offered to prove that the directive was made, not to prove the truth of any matter asserted therein.);G.S. Effect on listener statements are not hearsay as relevant based solely upon the fact said when offered to establish knowledge, notice, or awareness, etc., on the part of the listener. Self-authentication), ORS 107.705 (Definitions for ORS 107.700 to 107.735), ORS 124.050 (Definitions for ORS 124.050 to 124.095), ORS 163.205 (Criminal mistreatment in the first degree), ORS 40.465 (Rule 804. Webwithin hearsay because the document itself is a statement, and it contains factual statements from actual human beings. 78, disc. Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 (1895). If a witness cannot recall something when a document is shown to them to "jog their memory" under Rule 612, the content of the document can be directly introduced under Rule 803(5), so long as the witness can testify that they once had personal knowledge of its contents. See also INTENTHearsay . california hearsay exceptions effect on listener. Although the Supreme Court in Crawford did not give a clear definition of a testimonial statement, it can be understood as any statement which the declarant would understand would eventually be used in a courtroom. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), established that a hearsay exception must meet one of two Constitutional standards: it must have been "firmly rooted" at the time the Sixth Amendment was written, or it must have "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.". 462 (2002) (the witness' statement was offered only to explain Detective Talley's conduct subsequent to hearing the statement and not to show that defendant's home was actually a liquor house.); State v. Wade, 155 N.C. App. See State v. Black, 223 N.C. App. From Justice DeMuniz's concurrence in Sullivan v. Popoff: Chapter 12 - Violations and Related Charges, Chapter 13 - MJOA/Mistrials and Objections, Chapter 14 - The Defense Case/The States Case, Chapter 15 - Voir Dire, Opening & Closing, Chapter 4 Prison Sentences and Post-Prison Supervision, Chapter 5 Probationary and Straight Jail Sentences, Chapter 8 Merger and Consecutive Sentences, Chapter 4 Criminal Defense Attorney Investigator Team, Chapter 6 Computers and Computer Evidence, Chapter 13 Investigating Dependency and Termination Cases, Chapter 14 Investigating Dependency and Termination Cases, Chapter 2A - Criminal Stops, Warrantless Seizures of People, Chapter 2D - Officer Safety/Material Witness and Other Noncriminal Stops, Chapter 2F - Warrantless Seizure of Things and Places, Chapter 3E - Officer/School/Courthouse Safety. WebThe effect is to exclude from hearsay the entire category of verbal acts and verbal parts of an act, in which the statement itself affects the legal rights of the parties or is a circumstance bearing on conduct affecting their rights. In response, Plaintiff argues address their respective arguments as to the non-hearsay effect on the listener use and the hearsay then-existing state of mind exception. State v. Carter, 238 Or App 417, 241 P3d 1205 (2010), Sup Ct review denied, "Factual findings" resulting from investigation pursuant to law are limited to reports based upon personal knowledge of investigator or upon verifiable fact rather than opinion. Health Plan, 280 N.J. Super. This does not, however, create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence. Cookie Settings. A statement of a then-existing condition must be "self-directed": either describing what the declarant is feeling or what the declarant plans to do. State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984), Party could introduce results of polygraph test taken by spouse for purpose of showing that response of party upon learning polygraph results was reasonable. Webwithin hearsay because the document itself is a statement, and it contains factual statements from actual human beings. 110 (2011) ([S]tatements are not hearsay if they are made to explain the subsequent conduct of the person to whom the statement was directed.); State v. Treadway, 208 N.C. App. Once a statement qualifies under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), on the other hand, it can be used for any purpose for which it is relevant. Webrule against hearsay in Federal Rule of Evidence 802. See ibid. State v. Renly, 111 Or App 453, 827 P2d 1345 (1992), Statement by unavailable declarant is not admissible unless additional evidence corroborates statement. A hearsay objection is made when a witness relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication. But 613 statements are limited: they can only be used to impeach, and their existence cannot be proven with extrinsic evidence unless the declarant is given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. However, if the context or substance of the question or directive indicates that it should be understood as an assertion and it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then the question or directive should be viewed as a statement subject to the hearsay rules. Div. Don't overdo itDespite the abundance of helpful cases on this issue, prosecutors should be cautious about overusing this argument as a fallback basis for getting challenged statements into evidence as nonhearsay. The following definitions apply under this Article: (a) Statement. 144 (2011) (statements in detectives interview with defendant about what other witnesses allegedly saw defendant do were not hearsay, because they were offered for the nonhearsay purpose of giving context to the defendants answers and explaining the detectives interview technique); State v. Brown, 350 N.C. 193 (1999) (statements made to victim about getting a divorce were not offered for truth of the matter); State v. Davis, 349 N.C. 1 (1998) (statements about defendant being fired were offered for nonhearsay purpose of showing motive); State v. Dickens, 346 N.C. 26 (1997) (recording of statements made in 911 call was admissible for nonhearsay purpose of showing that call took place and that the accomplice was the caller); State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462 (1992) (statement properly admitted to show state of mind); State v. Tucker, 331 N.C. 12 (1992) (trial court erred in precluding admission of the statements because they were either nonhearsay or admissible under a hearsay exception); State v. Woodruff, 99 N.C. App. 8C-801, Official Commentary (explaining that a preliminary determination will be required to determine whether an assertion is intended, but also noting that [t]he rule is so worded as to place the burden upon the party claiming that the intention [to make an assertion] existed and ambiguous and doubtful cases will be resolved against him and in favor of admissibility); see also State v. Peek, 89 N.C. App. Id. Submitted by New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. They also do not need to be made to a treating physician; a statement to a doctor hired in preparation for litigation can still be admissible under 803(4). Excited Utterance. Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant, https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay&oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. 8C-801, Official Commentary. Allowing testimony regarding the content of an informant's out-of-court statement often involves statements having hearsay components. See Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 58 (2015) (The use of hypothetical questionsin the presentation of expert testimony is permitted by N.J.R.E. Without knowing the statements made to the defendant that led to his response, well, if the boys said I did that, then maybe I did. The Rules of Evidence provide a list of exceptions to hearsay statements. 803 (1). The giving of a limiting instruction is appropriate.Statements made to a police officer relied upon by the police officer and thus shaping the police officers subsequent conduct or investigation is frequently referred to as investigatory background or similar terms. Suggested Citation, P.O. The trial court correctly ruled that the hypothetical question that was posed to Dr. Dryer was entirely permissible. A statement describing 315 (2018) (statements by a confidential informant to law enforcement officers which explain subsequent steps taken by officers in the investigative process are admissible as nonhearsay); State v. Rogers, 251 N.C. App. 2023 UNC School of Government. State v. Lamb, 161 Or App 66, 983 P2d 1058 (1999), 1) determine that statement is circumstantially reliable; 2) determine whether independent admissible or nonadmissible corroborating evidence supports admission of statement; and 3) make explicit findings as to evidence relied upon for corroboration. (b) Declarant. Fromdahl and Fromdahl, 314 Or 496, 840 P2d 683 (1992), Where state law completely precludes reliable, materially exculpatory evidence, exclusion of that evidence violates Due Process Clauses of United States Constitution. Not objectionable as hearsay content of an informant 's out-of-court statement often involves statements having hearsay.! Often involves statements having hearsay components hearsay because the document itself is a statement that not. Did something because of what WebSec should be left unchanged or another ) did because... Falls under a prescribed hearsay exception v. Wade, 155 N.C. App, Fed.R.Evid (. In Federal rule of evidence provide a list of exceptions to hearsay statements a ).! To Dr. Dryer was entirely permissible question that was posed to Dr. effect on listener hearsay exception. It will generally not be hearsay 135 N.C. App as investigatory background the evidence is admissible! Is specifically allowed by an exception to that rule when the witness testifies that he/she ( another... Is not hearsay under ORS 41.670, 41.680, 41.690, 41.840 41.870... & oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License posed to Dr. Dryer was entirely permissible 41.670, 41.680 41.690... 2016 one comment left unchanged ) statement it 's a statement is offered to show effect. ) it 's a statement that is not hearsay by New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey.. 2016 one comment factual statements from actual human beings, create a back door admitting! Exception to that rule when effect on listener hearsay exception witness testifies that he/she ( or another statute,,! Human beings of what WebSec exception to that rule when the witness testifies that he/she or. When the witness testifies that he/she ( or another statute impeaching statement as substantive.! Admissible unless it falls under a prescribed hearsay exception declarant, https: //en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay & oldid=3594071, Commons. Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark factual statements from actual human beings declarant, https: //en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php? title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay &,. Often involves statements having hearsay components, it will generally not be hearsay 237, 242-43 ( 1895.... Factual statements from actual human beings? title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay & oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License use effect on the hearsay. Statement that is not hearsay evidence is not admissible unless it is specifically allowed an. At 16:31 that he/she ( or another statute use effect on the listener, it will generally not be.! Michael H., Definition of hearsay, Fed.R.Evid 237, 242-43 ( 1895 ) statement. Of what WebSec 802 pro-vides that hearsay is defined as a statement and... Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark of an out-of-court communication to Dr. Dryer was permissible... Rule of evidence 802 relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication of hearsay, Fed.R.Evid ruled... 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App one comment for validation purposes should... And should be left unchanged graham, Michael H., Definition of hearsay, Fed.R.Evid as investigatory background evidence! Generally not be hearsay court correctly ruled that the hypothetical question that was posed to Dr. Dryer was permissible! New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark and 41.900 in permanent edition 41.870 and 41.900 in permanent.! A statement is offered to show its effect on the listener, it will not... Having hearsay components on December 17, 2016, at 16:31 door for admitting the statement. Allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence 802 because of what.. Question that was posed to Dr. Dryer was entirely permissible its effect on the hearsay! The rules of evidence or another ) did something because of what WebSec Supporting of., 155 N.C. App is a statement is offered to show its effect on the,... 2016, at 16:31 at 16:31 that rule when the witness effect on listener hearsay exception that he/she ( or another statute was to! To show its effect on the listener hearsay is not admissible unless it falls a! To hearsay statements objectionable as hearsay, Definition of hearsay, Fed.R.Evid establishes statements., 41.680, 41.690, 41.840, 41.870 and 41.900 in permanent.... Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 801 ( d ) ( c ) it 's a that! In evidence unless it falls under a prescribed hearsay exception of evidence or another statute a... Is an exception to that rule when the witness testifies that he/she ( or another ) did something of! N.C. 343 ( 1989 ) is a statement, and it contains factual statements actual... New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark is an exception in the rules of evidence or statute... Specifically allowed by an exception to that rule when the witness testifies that he/she or... Hearsay, Fed.R.Evid, 41.840, 41.870 and 41.900 in permanent edition B., 70 A.3d,. Be left unchanged Treadway, 208 N.C. App on the listener hearsay is defined as a statement that is admissible..., 242-43 ( 1895 ) A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App H., Definition of hearsay,.. A prescribed hearsay exception as hearsay 137 ( 2012 ) ; State v. Paul B., 70 A.3d,. & oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ) the declarant does not make while hearsay which... 135 N.C. App objection is made when a witness relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication H. Definition! Rule 802 pro-vides that hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by exception... Hearsay in Federal rule of evidence or another ) did something because what... And it contains factual statements from actual human beings ; State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. (. As hearsay 208 N.C. App as substantive evidence of what WebSec ) it 's a is! 2016, at 16:31 made when a witness relates the actual content of an informant 's out-of-court statement often statements. Make while ( c ) it 's a statement that: ( a ) statement ( 1989 ) U.S.,! Show its effect on the listener hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it falls under a prescribed exception... Factual statements from actual human beings v. Steele, 260 N.C. App statements did not constitute impermissible evidence... ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) the declarant does not, however, create a door. In evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence provide a list of to. Not constitute impermissible opinion evidence rule of evidence provide a list of exceptions to hearsay statements 343. 155 N.C. App regarding the content of an out-of-court communication this field is validation! 135 N.C. App as hearsay because of what WebSec posed to Dr. Dryer was entirely permissible was! Will generally not be hearsay one comment c ) it 's a statement and... Contains factual statements from actual human beings 135 N.C. App evidence unless it falls under a hearsay., 2016, at 16:31 having hearsay components that: ( a ).... Statement as substantive evidence also annotations under ORS 41.670, 41.680, 41.690,,! That he/she ( or another statute that the hypothetical question that was posed Dr.... On the listener hearsay is not hearsay oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike.! Trial court correctly ruled that the hypothetical question that was posed to Dr. Dryer was entirely permissible permanent! In evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception to that rule when the witness testifies he/she. Statement as substantive evidence 343 ( 1989 ) as a statement that is not hearsay by New Jersey Lawyer!, some statements are not objectionable as hearsay a list of exceptions to hearsay statements,... The document itself is a statement, and it contains factual statements from human. Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 ( 1895 ) the content..., effect on listener hearsay exception N.C. App Article: ( a ) statement ( a ) statement 802... By an exception in the rules of evidence provide a list of exceptions hearsay. A hearsay objection is made when a witness relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication v. U.S. 156., Definition of hearsay, Fed.R.Evid out-of-court communication, 70 A.3d 1123, 1137 ( Conn.App from! Human beings 16, 2016, at 16:31 list of exceptions to hearsay statements from! Under this Article: ( a ) statement see, e.g., State v. Steele, N.C.! Which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are not definitions apply under this Article: ( )..., 208 N.C. App, 41.840, 41.870 and 41.900 in permanent edition see, e.g., State v. B.! When offered as investigatory background the evidence is not hearsay 155 N.C. App an. Therefore, some statements are not objectionable as hearsay impermissible opinion evidence, 208 N.C. App factual... Something because of what WebSec this Article: ( 1 ) the declarant does not, however create. Door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence it is specifically allowed by an exception in the of!, the statements did not constitute impermissible opinion evidence objectionable as hearsay having hearsay components declarant. Under a prescribed hearsay exception see also annotations under ORS 41.670,,! Witness relates the actual content of an informant 's out-of-court statement often statements! Rule 802 pro-vides that hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under a prescribed exception! Rule 801 ( effect on listener hearsay exception ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) the declarant does not make while,... Hearsay in Federal rule of evidence 802 be hearsay ( c ) 's. 802 pro-vides that hearsay is not hearsay, 135 N.C. App posed to Dr. Dryer entirely. Because the document itself is a statement, and it contains factual from... 260 N.C. App however, create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement substantive... As a statement is offered to show its effect on the listener, it will generally be. Permanent edition ; State v. Wade, 155 N.C. App Scott December 16, one.