ph14 wrote:I guess a relevant issue i'm unsure about is disaggregating a statement that contains both admissible courtroom testimony and nonadmissible hearsay. What is the relevant rule/case/rationale/result?
A statement comes in or not based on what's it being offered to show. Here, the witness' statements to a third party are not being offered for their truth--the truth value is already established by her testimony that she saw the defendant.
Instead, they're being offered to show that the statement was made
. You could make a prejudicial / probative argument to try to keep out the statement itself and replace with "I made a statement" or "Witness made a statement," but a hearsay objection won't do the trick.
M testifying as to what L said out of court establishes FRE 801(c)(1), but you still have to satisfy 801(c)(2) for a statement to be hearsay. Here, the statement was "K just came in" as asserted by L. 801(c)(2) says that for a statement to be hearsay it must be offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." M's testimony isn't being offered to prove "K came in," which is what the statement asserts, it's being used to prove the timing. Therefore it is not hearsay.
I want to push back on this. Please correct me if i'm wrong. I think you have to treat these two statements separately. I don't think you can backdoor hearsay in like this. For example, the government is trying to prove the the sky is blue. Witness testifies, "I saw the sky, it was blue, as I was in Defendant's office where he told me he killed Victim." Just because they here were trying to prove the sky was blue, doesn't mean that the other parts of the statement aren't also offered for the truth of the matter. Even if they say they were trying to prove one thing, that doesn't mean that the rest of the statement is not for the truth of the matter asserted. My intuition is that you can't run end-around the hearsay rules like that.
So in our example, we disaggregate the two statements. First one we will ignore since it is not a hearsay problem, and is rather plain courtroom testimony. Now all we have left is the out of court statement that, "K said that L came in" (or something to that effect). If offered for the truth of the matter it is inadmissible hearsay (assuming no exception applies). If it is not being offered for the truth, then it seems to be it would fail 403. It would seem highly prejudicial to get the hearsay statement in by saying it is not being offered for the truth of the matter. I guess we would have to look at what it is really offered for, not what the proponent of the evidence says. Here, it isn't really clear, and I guess you would just argue it both ways? My intuition is that you have to assume it is offered for the truth of the matter unless they say otherwise. So I'd think that this second part would be inadmissible hearsay, despite the proponent's statement that it is not offered for this purpose.
Anyways, can someone please clarify this for me.
Edit: Nevermind, at least in this hypo it appears that statement at issue was actually an in-court statement, and so not hearsay. But i'm still confused as to the above, which assumes that the person never testified.