# Hearsay Testimony in Court **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 15, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hearsay-testimony-in-court/743272 "2016-01-15T20:44:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hearsay-testimony-in-court/743272/41 "2016-01-22T12:07:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, maybe. _Statements by party opponents_ and _statements against interest_ are closely related, but the OP’s example is probably not admissible as a statement against interest. SAIs are only admissible when the declarant is unavailable to testify. Since we don’t try people _in absentia_ in the US, the defendant should be available to testify (and AFAIK it doesn’t count as “unavailable” if the defendant-witness is refusing to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds). > > On the other hand, an admission by a party opponent can be offered no matter who said it and whether they are available or not. Thanks. > [@Bricker](#): > > Absolutely correct. And thanks to you, also. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hearsay-testimony-in-court/743272/42 "2016-01-22T12:51:03Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > So, if I understand it correctly, if A testifies: > > "I heard B say at 9:30 on Christmas Eve that he had the Picasso in his trunk " is hearsay if it’s offered as evidence the Picasso was in the trunk, but might (would?) be admissible hearsay, but would not be hearsay at all, if it was offered as evidence that B was not in a coma on Christmas Eve at 9:30, or as evidence that A wasn’t deliberately wasting the police’s time by calling them to look in a trunk that turned out to have only a spare tire and some old newspapers). Right. A more straight forward example is one where the prosecution theorizes a missing person, later found dead, was kidnapped at 4:30p.m. A neighbor testifies that she saw the victim at 5:30 and had a long conversation about the upcoming snowstorm. “She told me that I if I didn’t go to the store in an hour, they would be closed early due to the weather.” The purpose of offering the statement is to show that the victim was safe and unharmed at 5:30p.m. It is not used to prove an early store closure. If it was used to prove an early store closure, say in a breach of contract suit, it would be hearsay and inadmissible (unless another exception applies). Another example is the “effect on the listener” rule: Q. Why were you driving on the roads at 5:47 p.m.? A. Because my neighbor told me that the stores closed at 6:30. Assuming the store closure time wasn’t an issue, this is also non hearsay. We don’t really care whether the claim about the store closure is true or not, all we care about is that the statement itself caused the listener to do or not do certain things. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hearsay-testimony-in-court/743272/43 "2016-01-22T13:13:32Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > I’m not sure I follow. “I’m gonna kill my parents” proves nothing, there is no truth - the parents may still be alive. Nothing has happened at the time of that statement. From what little I know of procedure (thanks, L&O) it goes to state of mind and intent, not proof of an action or assertion. It doesn’t prove anything by itself, but if a person is on trial for killing his parents, and a package of evidence is presented, including testimony that he said “I’m gonna kill my parents” then I don’t see how the statement is anything but good evidence. The statement is used in an attempt to prove the truth of the matter asserted: the defendant intended to kill his parents. I think you are being too restrictive in the term “used as proof.” Maybe “used to attempt to prove” would be a better wording for the Rules of Evidence. I’m not sure why you would differentiate between “prove” and then say it only goes to state of mind or intent. In a murder case, the State must prove state of mind and intent for a first degree murder conviction. Those are elements of the crime just the same as the fact a person is dead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hearsay-testimony-in-court/743272.md?page=2)