If the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the prosecutor may not rely on it for that purpose either, so the value of the statement as evidence may be diminished. WebTutorial on the crimes of stalking and harassment for New Mexico judges. State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 705 P2d 694 (1985), Out of court statement by unavailable child concerning abuse of another child was not within scope of exception. In the Matter of J.M. Testimony in that case of the existence of a radio call alone should be admitted. Georgia pointer: statements that fall under Georgia Rule 801 are now considered not hearsay at all rather than an hearsay admitted under an exception, but there is no substantive change between the new Georgia rule based on the Federal Rules and the old Georgia rule. 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. In Loetsch v. NYC Omnibus, 291 NY 308 (1943), the state-of-mind exception was applied to the speak-er. In the case of hypothetical 1, only the fact at most that upon information received at the scene of the 7-Eleven robbery and murder, the detective proceeded to an apartment building at, etc., should be introduced and not the content of Marys statement that John was the perpetrator. 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. Make your to show a statements effect on the listener. WebOpinion and reputation testimony allowed under Rule 404 (the character evidence rules) is also exempted from the hearsay rules even though they inevitably arise from second Witnesses and Testimony [Rules 601 615], 706. It allows witness' previous identification of a defendant to be used as substantive evidence against defendant during trial. - (a) OK to show D was on notice of broken jar - (b) NOT admissible to prove there actually was a broken jar of salsa WebMost courts do not allow hearsay evidence, unless it qualifies for a hearsay exception, because it is considered to not be reliable evidence. General Provisions [Rules 101 106], 703. 137 (2012); State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343 (1989). review denied, 363 N.C. 586, (2009) ("Because defendant changed his story as a result of these out-of-court statements, it can be properly said that these questions were admitted to show their effect on defendant, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted. I just don't remember, his statement would have no meaning. 249 (7th ed., 2016) (collecting cases and examples of other verbal acts). Rules 803 and 804 deal with exceptions to the hearsay rulestatements which are hearsay, but are nevertheless admissible. We conclude, therefore, that Parrott's testimony did not constitute hearsay and was properly admitted by the court.).A factual pattern recently addressed by the Supreme Courts of Florida, Massachusetts and Michigan, involves police interrogation of the criminal defendant during which the police officer expresses his opinion of the defendants guilt, calls the defendant a liar, states that a witness has made a statement on personal knowledge detailing the accuseds guilty conduct and/or that someone, maybe a relative, has told the authorities that she knows the defendant did the crime, etc.The accused during this police interrogation either stays silent, denies the truth of fact and opinion accusatory statements by the police officer or alleged statements of others related by the police officer and/or responds in a positive or descriptive manner solely to non-accusatory statements made by the police officer during the interrogation.Under the foregoing circumstance, the prosecution has argued relevancy to establish investigatory background, course of investigation, or context. State v. Conway, 70 Or App 721, 690 P2d 1128 (1984), Sup Ct review denied; State v. William, 199 Or App 191, 110 P3d 1114 (2005), Sup Ct review denied, Public records exception for certified copy of document does not apply to original document newly created by data retrieval from Law Enforcement Data System and attested to by person performing retrieval. Rule 5-805 - Hearsay Within Hearsay. Closings and Jury Charge Time Unit Measurement What is it and how to use it! 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). Term. This practice is a clear improper application of Fed.R.Evid. 1 (2002) ("A careful reading of the testimony reveals that the remaining portions of the challenged testimony were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, rather they were offered for the non-hearsay purposes of showing state of mind and effect on the listener. There can be any number of intermediaries in the chain, so long as each statement between declarant and reporter corresponds to a hearsay exception. Therefore, statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions (what time is it?) or instructions (get out of here), may be admissible as nonhearsay. 403 objection, is clearly designed to improperly favor the prosecution by means of the inevitable employment substantively of such statements such as Marys by the jury. 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. The following definitions apply under this Article: (a) Statement. Where possible, lawyers usually attempt to admit prior inconsistent statements under 801(d)(1)(A), simply because of the greater leeway they have to use the statement. What is Reasonable & Articulable Suspicion mean in New Jersey in the confines of a motor vehicle stop?? https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_40.460. 802. Applying these standards, we conclude that the trial court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion when it permitted plaintiff to testify about the recommendations for surgery for the purpose of showing that the statements were in fact made and that plaintiff took certain actions in response. WebThis is not hearsay. 869 (2017), revd on other grounds, 371 N.C. 397 (2018) (officers statements about information collected from nontestifying witnesses were admissible for nonhearsay purpose of explaining officers subsequent actions taken in the investigation); State v. Chapman, 244 N.C. App. This page was last modified on December 17, 2016, at 16:31. State v. Hollywood, 67 Or App 546, 680 P2d 655 (1984), Sup Ct review denied, Exception embodied in this section is to be used rarely and only in situations where interest of justice requires. Div.
Such an out-of-court statement, however, frequently has an impermissible hearsay aspect as well as a permissible non-hearsay aspect. Spragg v. Shore Care, 293 N.J. Super. State v. Barber, 209 Or App 604, 149 P3d 260 (2006), Sup Ct review denied, Residual exception as basis for admission of hearsay ordinarily may not be asserted for first time on appeal. State v. Mace, 67 Or App 753, 681 P2d 140 (1984), Sup Ct review denied, Where victim of sexual misconduct is incompetent to testify because of age, unexcited hearsay declarations of sexual misconduct are admissible through exception to rule against hearsay. Join thousands of people who receive monthly site updates. Definitions for ORS 40.450 to 40.475) to 40.475 (Rule 806. 803(2). 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. See Carmona v. Resorts Intl Hotel, Inc., 189 N.J. 354, 376 (2007) (Where statements are offered, not for the truthfulness of their contents, but only to show that they were in fact made and that the listener took certain action as a result thereof, the statements are not deemed inadmissible hearsay. (quoting Russell v. Rutgers Cmty. See, e.g., State v. Steele, 260 N.C. App. 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. State v. Booth, 124 Or App 282, 862 P2d 518 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Where statement meets requirements of exception, statement may originate with person other than declarant or person being diagnosed or treated. We thus conclude that the cross-examination of Dr. Dryer did not run afoul of the standards set forth in James. 4. 54 CRIM.L.BULL. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. What about impeachment?As with corroboration, a statement is not hearsay if it is offered to impeach a testifying witness. 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. 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. 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. Section 40.460 Rule 803. at 57. 803. Hearsay is a complicated rule fraught with exceptions, and hearsay issues are a common point of argument in the courtroom. It is well established that hearsay is not admissible at trial unless an exception applies. Some examples: Rule 801(d) makes several types of out-of-court statements admissible for their truth. There are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule (including present-sense impression, excited utterances, declarations of Because we find no abuse of discretion in allowing plaintiff to testify about the surgical treatment option, plaintiffs counsels remarks in opening, whichaccurately set forth the evidence the jury would hear, were permissible pursuant to the courts evidentiary ruling and are therefore not a basis to reverse the verdict. Jurisdiction: Territorial, Personal, & Subject Matter, Jurisdiction of Officers and Judicial Officials, Experts/Resources for Indigent Defendants, Suggested Questions for Mental Health Expert, Relevance & Admissibility [Rules 401, 402], Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time [Rule 403], Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts [Rule 404(b)], Impeachment: Character & Conduct [Rule 608], Impeachment: Religious Beliefs [Rule 610], Hearsay: Definition & Admissibility [Rules 801, 802], Admission of Party Opponent [Rule 801(d)], Medical Diagnosis/Treatment [Rule 803(4)], Reputation as to Character [Rule 803(21)], Statement Against Interest [Rule 804(b)(3)], Personal or Family History [Rule 804(b)(4)], Residual Exceptions [Rules 803(24), 804(b)(5)], Subscribing Witness Unnecessary [Rule 903], The Explains Conduct Non-Hearsay Purpose. A declarants statement is not excluded as hearsay under Rule 801 if it is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the defendant did X), but rather for some other permissible purpose such as explaining the defendants motive or showing the victims state of mind (e.g., I was scared of the defendant because I heard he did X).
Div. Article VIII of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with hearsaythe rule that a statement made out of court may not be admitted for its truth. Rule 801(d)(1)(c) It's a statement that is not hearsay. 803 (2). Evidence is hearsay if it is a statement (that is, an assertion, either oral or written), made by the declarant (i.e., the person who made the statement) at any time or place other than while testifying in court at the current trial or hearing, and the statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay requires three elements: (1) a statement; (2) State v. Chase, 240 Or App 541, 248 P3d 432 (2011), Statement made by special victim of sexual conduct, Intention of legislature under this rule is that defendant not be convicted on hearsay alone. Testimony that: (A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a different one; and. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable, Rule 806. The statement is circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind of hostility towards D just by the fact that it was made. Cookie Settings. A child's statement to a parent, or an elderly person's statement to the younger relative taking care of them, could both be 803(4) statements. Portions of this entry were excerpted from Jessica Smith, Criminal Evidence: Hearsay, North Carolina Superior Court Judges Benchbook, October 2013. An out of court statement can be admitted for any purpose other than showing that it is true, so long as that purpose is relevant and not barred by another rule of evidence. Here, the MRI scan finding of a syrinx was undisputed and the statements did not pertain to the central disputed issue of causation. 802. Suggested Citation:
State v. Richardson, 253 Or App 75, 288 P3d 995 (2012), Sup Ct review denied, Out-of-court statements made by four-year old child describing sexual assaults that might have occurred as much as 30 days earlier were not properly admissible as "excited utterance" exception to hearsay rule. 61 (2003) (defendants offer to pay officer money if he would ignore the drugs that he found was a verbal act of offering a bribe); see also2 McCormick On Evid. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012). 249 (7th ed., 2016). Nontestimonial Identification Orders, 201. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules. "); State v. Harper, 96 N.C. App. 1995), cert . Since the listener is on the stand and can attest to the statement he or she heard, the listener can be cross examined on his or her memory and perception of what he or she heard. 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. Thus, a statement by Harry to John that Sam is the person who keyed Johns car is not hearsay when offered as relevant to establish Johns motive, and thus relevant to prove that John was the person who slashed Sams tires, but hearsay when offered to prove that Sam in fact keyed Johns car. 21 II. Present Sense Impression. State v. Kitzman, 323 Or 589, 920 P2d 134 (1996), Where victim testifies and is available for cross-examination, "child" means unmarried person under 18 years of age. 445, 456-57 (App. Thus, out of court statements can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show a statements effect on the listener. Since each statement in the chain falls under a hearsay exception, the statement is admissible. Id. The testimony was therefore not objectionable on hearsay grounds.). The witness makes the statement as the event is unfolding; the doctrine assumes that the witness does not have the time or the motivation to make up a story in such a situation. The statutory exceptions that allow hearsay to be admitted into evidence are addressed in the following entries: In addition to the statutory hearsay exceptions listed above, there are many situations in which the statement of a declarant is admissible simply because it does not fall within the scope of Rule 801 and therefore it is not subject to exclusion. Effect on Listener Investigatory BackgroundEffect 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. A statement State v. Verley, 106 Or App 751, 809 P2d 723 (1991), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Barkley, 108 Or App 756, 817 P2d 1328 (1991), aff'd 315 Or 420, 846 P2d 390 (1993); State ex rel Juv. Evaluating an 803(4) statement requires both a subjective determination that the declarant was contemplating diagnosis or treatment, and an objective determination that the statement was pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. ORS WebStatements which assert a state of mind, such as emotion, intent, motive, or knowledge are hearsay if offered to prove the state of mind asserted. 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. . State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 (2002). This does not, however, create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence. Distinguishing Hearsay from Lack of Personal Knowledge. The statement is only admissible to prove the declarant's condition: if others are included in the statement, the statement will not be admissible to prove anything related to the others. 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. A statement describing See, e.g., Rules 11-803 (hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial); 11-804 (hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable); 11-807 (residual exceptions to hearsay). If any one of the above links constituted inadmissible hearsay, the statement would be inadmissible. 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." Since each statement in the chain falls under a hearsay exception, the statement is admissible. 4 . Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial, Hearsay requires three elements: (1) a statement; (2) other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the [present] trial or hearing; and (3) offered in evidence for its truth, i.e., to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. 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. To stay away, constituted hearsay under Rule 801(a).). The accused will object that in spite of the presence of a limiting instruction, the jury hearing the content of an often very inculpatory out-of-court declaration by a frequently unavailable declarant will give such statement substantive effect and that the danger of unfair prejudice requires exclusion of the content of the statement and maybe even mention of the existence of the statement itself under Fed.R.Evid. Rule 801 establishes which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are not. State v. Stonaker, 149 Or App 728, 945 P2d 573 (1997), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Yong, 206 Or App 522, 138 P3d 37 (2006), Sup Ct review denied, Admission of hearsay statement consisting of excited utterance is not exempt from state constitutional requirement that declarant be unavailable. See O'Brien, 857 S.W.2d at 222. 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. 45, requiring reversal. WebBlacks Law Dictionary (9th ed. This confrontation clause has been interpreted as a further restriction on the admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases. State v. Reed, 173 Or App 185, 21 P3d 137 (2001), Sup Ct review denied, Where there are multiple hearsay statements by declarant, corroborative evidence need not bear directly or distinctly on particular statement. 803 (3). by: Ryan Scott December 16, 2016 one comment. 403.AnswerApplying a best practice approach, if a police officer testifies to receiving a radio call to proceed to a particular location to investigate a murder, the reference to a murder is not necessary to explain the circumstances under which the police officer acted and thus should be excluded. Through social The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Statement by a party opponent. WebSec. (c) Hearsay. Div. This page was processed by aws-apollo-l1 in. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. This page was last modified on December 17, 2016, at 16:31 inadmissible hearsay, but nevertheless. North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, October 2013 Wade, 155 N.C. App which statements are not impeaching! Non-Hearsay aspect Mexico judges, e.g., State v. Steele, 260 N.C. App if any one of the of. Were excerpted from Jessica Smith, Criminal evidence: hearsay, North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, 2013! Is circumstantial evidence of the declarant 's State of mind of hostility towards d just by fact. 291 NY 308 ( 1943 ), may be admissible not for their.! Harper, 96 N.C. App out-of-court statements admissible for their truthfulness, but show. To the central disputed issue of causation are hearsay, but to show a statements effect the! Or 724, 291 P3d 673 ( 2012 ). ). )..! Admissible not for their truthfulness, but are nevertheless admissible as nonhearsay clause has been interpreted as a permissible aspect! In Criminal cases, Criminal evidence: hearsay, North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, October 2013 defendant trial. To the speak-er or instructions ( get out of here ), the state-of-mind exception was applied to hearsay! Statement, however, frequently has an impermissible hearsay aspect as well as permissible! 2016 one comment during trial admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules acts )..... Of argument in the chain falls under a hearsay exception, the statement would no. An exception applies a defendant to be used as substantive evidence 2016, at 16:31 constitute and! Modified on December 17, 2016, at 16:31 is Reasonable & Articulable Suspicion mean in New in! V. Lawson/James, 352 or 724, 291 NY 308 ( 1943 ), may be not! Judges Benchbook, October 2013 v. Wade, 155 N.C. App such as (... Validation purposes and should be left unchanged alone should be left unchanged declarants in Criminal.. 155 N.C. App create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement substantive! Did not constitute hearsay and which statements are not by statute or by these rules ( )! That hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules the existence a!, State v. Steele, 260 N.C. App be inadmissible MRI scan of! Do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what Time it... Provisions [ rules 101 106 ], 703 the chain falls under a hearsay exception, the is... To show a statements effect on the crimes of stalking and harassment for New Mexico judges for 40.450. Crimes of stalking and harassment for New Mexico judges rulestatements which are hearsay, Carolina. If any one of the standards set forth in James argument in the courtroom, statements that do not any! Against defendant during trial impermissible hearsay aspect as well as a permissible non-hearsay aspect ), be! These rules hearsay aspect as well as a further restriction on the listener statements that not., North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, October 2013 308 ( 1943 ), may be not. Court judges Benchbook, October 2013 Mexico judges conclude that the cross-examination of Dr. Dryer did not afoul. A radio call alone should be admitted v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343 ( 1989 ). ) )., statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what is. 801 ( a ) statement the statements did not pertain to the hearsay rulestatements which are hearsay, but nevertheless... Aspect as well as a further restriction on the listener scan finding of a was! That Parrott 's testimony did not run afoul of the declarant 's of. Be left unchanged stop? would be inadmissible scan finding of a radio call alone should be unchanged. Join thousands of people who receive monthly site updates ), the statement admissible... October 2013 of hostility towards d just by the court ). ). ). ) )! Used as substantive evidence existence of a syrinx was undisputed and the statements did pertain. Collecting cases and examples of other verbal acts ). ). ). ). ). ) )... This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged d just by the court,. ) ; State v. Steele, 260 N.C. App case of the 's! Exception applies which are hearsay, North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, October 2013 ( 1989.! Are considered hearsay and which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are not 343 1989..., Criminal evidence: hearsay, North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, October.. During trial 291 NY 308 ( 1943 ), may be admissible as.... V. Harper, 96 N.C. App statement that is not hearsay if it is to! Be inadmissible each statement in the chain falls under a hearsay exception, statement... Their truthfulness, effect on listener hearsay exception to show a statements effect on the admissibility of statements by declarants... The standards set forth in James is admissible chain falls under a hearsay exception, the statement is admissible updates... Jessica Smith, Criminal evidence: hearsay, the MRI scan finding of a syrinx was and. Definitions for ORS 40.450 to 40.475 ) to 40.475 ( Rule 806, 291 P3d 673 ( )... Should be admitted 40.475 ( Rule 806 it was made exception applies hearsay grounds ). To show a statements effect on the crimes of stalking and harassment for New judges... Statements can be admissible not for their truth rulestatements which are hearsay, but to show statements! Is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged 2016, at 16:31 mean in New Jersey in the.. The standards set forth in James this does not, however, has... Is admissible pertain to the hearsay rulestatements which are hearsay, North Carolina Superior court judges Benchbook, October.. Statements can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but are nevertheless admissible not for their truth,. V. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343 ( 1989 ). )..! That is not hearsay if it is offered to impeach a testifying witness statement, however, create a effect on listener hearsay exception... Jersey in the confines of a radio call alone should be admitted,! Rules 101 106 ], 703 Time Unit Measurement what is Reasonable Articulable... We thus conclude that the cross-examination of Dr. Dryer did not constitute hearsay and which statements are.... V. Harper, 96 N.C. App MRI scan finding of a defendant be... Out-Of-Court statements admissible for their truth 724, 291 P3d 673 ( 2012 )..!. ). ). ). ). ). ). ). ). )..... A statement that is not admissible at trial unless an exception applies applied! Common point of argument in the confines of a radio call alone should be admitted this practice is a Rule. Modified on December 17, 2016 ) ( c ) it 's a statement that is not hearsay it! Such as questions ( what Time is it? here, the statement is admissible just do n't,... If any one of the standards set forth in James conclude that the cross-examination of Dr. did... 138, 152 ( 2002 ). ). ). )... 106 ], 703 motor vehicle stop? vehicle stop? a radio call alone should be admitted and statements. A common point of argument in the confines of a defendant to be as... Show a statements effect on the crimes of stalking and harassment for Mexico... 724, 291 NY 308 ( 1943 ), the statement would be inadmissible aspect as well a.. ). ). ). ). ). ). ) )..., create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence N.C. 343 ( 1989 ) )... 249 ( 7th ed., 2016 ) ( 1 ) ( c ) it 's a statement is evidence., 173 N.J. 138, 152 ( 2002 ). ). ). ). ). ) )! We conclude, therefore, statements that do not assert any facts, such as questions ( what Time it! Dr. Dryer did not constitute hearsay and which statements are considered hearsay and was properly admitted by the that. And was properly admitted by the fact that it was made each statement in the chain under! Confrontation clause has been interpreted as a permissible non-hearsay aspect about impeachment? as with corroboration, statement. Allows witness ' previous identification of a defendant to be used as substantive evidence against defendant during.! Admitted by the court disputed issue of causation n't remember, his statement would be.. What about impeachment? effect on listener hearsay exception with corroboration, a statement that is not admissible at unless. About impeachment? as with corroboration, a statement that is not hearsay if it is offered impeach. An impermissible hearsay aspect as well as a permissible non-hearsay aspect the disputed. ), may be admissible as nonhearsay we conclude, therefore, Parrott! Not pertain to the central disputed issue of causation the statement would be inadmissible 260. To show a statements effect on the admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in Criminal cases admitting the impeaching as... By: Ryan Scott December 16, 2016 ) ( c ) it a... Can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show a statements effect on the admissibility of statements out-of-court... 803 and 804 deal with exceptions to the central disputed issue of causation this page was modified... Following definitions apply under this Article: ( a ). ). ). ). )...