249 (7th ed., 2016). Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 (1895). Section 40.460 Rule 803. N: STOP 403, as providing context to the defendants response. State v. Hollywood, 67 Or App 546, 680 P2d 655 (1984), Sup Ct review denied, Statements made by four-year old victim to her mother about alleged sexual attack were made within short period of time with no intervening opportunity for outside influence and therefore it was not error to admit them as excited utterances. Since each statement in the chain falls under a hearsay exception, the statement is admissible. State v. Crain, 182 Or App 446, 50 P3d 1206 (2002), If victim's statements relate victim's memory of past intention and present conclusions about past event, and conclusions are based on reflection of past, statements are inadmissible as statements of memory and belief. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial, Rule 804. Such a statement may alternatively be relevant as bearing upon the reasonableness of the listeners subsequent conduct, e.g., apprehensive of immediate danger.Of course, the same statement which is not hearsay when offered for its effect on listener, i.e., relevant for the fact said, is hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. for non-profit, educational, and government users. Prior inconsistent statements under this rule are a subset of prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613. Annotations are listed under the heading "Under former similar statute" if they predate the adoption of the Evidence Code, which went into effect January 1, 1982. 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. The rule against hearsay Section 803. 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. Rule 801(d)(1) focuses on the statements of witnesses; Rule 801(d)(2) focuses on the statements of parties, which are known as admissions. 1995))). Rule 5-805 - Hearsay Within Hearsay. 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. 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. See State v. Black, 223 N.C. App. : A-56-18 Decided February 17, 2023 Submitted byNew Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. FL Stat 90.803 (2013) What's This? A present sense impression can be thought of as a "play by play." 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. Our review of the record demonstrates that the statement was admitted for the limited purpose of providing context to the defendant's response. 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. Id. Officer Paiva's statements were offered at trial to provide context to Jones's answers during the interrogation. State v. Renly, 111 Or App 453, 827 P2d 1345 (1992), Statement by unavailable declarant is not admissible unless additional evidence corroborates statement. Unfortunately, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Maine, and several other jurisdictions have yet to see the full error of their ways. Cookie Settings. Excited Utterance. 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. Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. See also INTENTHearsay . E.D. 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. at 71-72. 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. 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. Defendant contends that plaintiffs cross-examination of Dr. Dryer ran afoul of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. 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. State v. Wolfs, 119 Or App 262, 850 P2d 1139 (1993), Sup Ct review denied, Statement is related to startling event if subject of statement would likely be evoked by event. 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. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012). 8C-801, Official Commentary. we provide special support WebHearsay is not admissible except as provided in ORS 40.450 (Rule 801. 30 (2011). Definitions That Apply to This Article. The key factor is that the declarant must still be under the stress of excitement. 120. 8-3. Plaintiffs counsel did not attempt to use Dr. Arginteanus recommendation to show that Dr. Dryer disregarded relevant facts or to present Dr. Arginteanus treatment recommendation as a tie breaker between competing expert opinions. Overview of Hearsay Exceptions. 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. Evidence 503. ORS 40.510 (Rule 902. 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. Testimony in that case of the existence of a radio call alone should be admitted. Relevance and Prejudice [Rules 401 412], 705. 803 (1). See State v. Steele, 260 N.C. App. State v. Reed, 173 Or App 185, 21 P3d 137 (2001), Sup Ct review denied, "Good cause" for failure to give timely notice of intent to use statement refers to circumstances that cause prosecution to be unable to comply with notice requirement. 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." 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. at 6.) The statement is circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind of hostility towards D just by the fact that it was made. There are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule (including present-sense impression, excited utterances, declarations of In this case, the question posed to Dr. Dryer did not seek to establish that his opinion was consistent with Dr. Argintineus opinion; rather it simply asked whether Dr. Dryer himself felt that a fusion was an appropriate treatment for a syrinx. [because they] are offered to explain plaintiffs actions, and not for the truthfulness of their content. Jugan v. Pollen, 253 N.J. Super. WebThere are a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule (including present-sense impression, excited utterances, declarations of present state of mind, dying and the business records exceptions), as well as things defined not to be hearsay (admission of a party-opponent, and prior statements of a witness). 38 Pages 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J.R.E. Suggested Citation, P.O. Thus, out of court statements can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show a statements effect on the listener. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), established a rule that testimonial statements made out of court are inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. At trial, and on the issue of dam-ages suffered by the surviving hus-band, the defendant offered in evi-dence a statement in the wifes will, executed a few months before the State v. Jensen, 313 Or 587, 837 P2d 525 (1992), Statements made by medical expert concerning medical diagnosis or treatment of child abuse, although supporting child's testimony, are admissible and are not direct comment on child's credibility. 1992) (holding that statements made to plaintiff regarding the limitations of his activity were not hearsay when offered to prove offered to prove that plaintiff limited his activity based upon advice given to him.). Term. 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. 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. Closings and Jury Charge Time Unit Measurement What is it and how to use it! Finally, this note will consider the effects that recognition of a residual exception would have on Illinois law. Stanfield v. Laccoarce, 284 Or 651, 588 P2d 1271 (1978), Whether routinely prepared record is made within regular course of business depends on whether circumstances under which record is made furnish sufficient checks against misstatement to invest record with some badge of truthfulness. Before continuing further, it is important to point out a further qualification to the hearsay rule. In that regard, there was no tie to break: Dr. Yao testified he did not believe any future treatment by a neurosurgeon would cure the syrinx, and Dr. Daniels testified that in his opinion plaintiff would not benefit from surgery. Webrule against hearsay in Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Dept. 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. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable, Rule 806. Abstract However, the breadth of admissibility provided for with respect to multiple-level hearsay is subject to challenge. 803(3). It is invoked when the declarant makes a statement to a third party, who then retells the statement to the reporter. State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 786 P2d 111 (1990), Statements made by child victim to physician and to physician's assistant about sexual abuse by defendant were admissible as statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, even though reason victim was taken to physician was for possible diagnosis of sexual abuse. 517 (2009) (evidence offered for corroboration and not as substantive evidence will not be excluded as hearsay); State v. Guice, 141 N.C. App. This page was processed by aws-apollo-l1 in 0.062 seconds, Using these links will ensure access to this page indefinitely. Jeffrey Hark is a New Jersey Civil and Criminal Lawyer. State v. Wilcox, 180 Or App 557, 43 P3d 1182 (2002), Sup Ct review denied, Hearsay statement does not violate confrontation right where declarant is unavailable or is available, actually present and ready to testify. Box 248087Coral Gables, FL 33146United States, Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic, Law & Society: Public Law - Crime, Criminal Law, & Punishment eJournal, Law & Society: Criminal Procedure eJournal, Evidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal, Legal Anthropology: Criminal Law eJournal, We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. 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. 2. Rule 803(5) is a close relative of Rule 612, discussed in the Witnesses chapter. It allows witness' previous identification of a defendant to be used as substantive evidence against defendant during trial. Rule 801 establishes which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are not. License Defense (Drug/Mental Health Issues), Negligent Inspection Truck Accidents in New Jersey, 2018 New Jersey Crime Statistics By County (PDF), Allowing the jury to hear a Hearsay statement. How. 802. 4 . 315 (2018); State v. Leyva, 181 N.C. App. 802. A hearsay objection is made when a witness relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication. 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. Webhave produced an effect upon his state of mind. 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. Exceptions to the Rule Against HearsayRegardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness. 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. 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. See, G.S. Records of regularly conducted activity (ORS 41.690), This section vests considerable discretion in trial judge concerning admissibility. 887 (2018) , Available at SSRN: If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday. 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. Div. L. 9312, Mar. 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. Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute. Don v. Edison Car Company, New Jersey Appellate Division May 9, 2019 (Not Approved for Publication). 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). 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. 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. See, e.g., State v. Weaver, 160 N.C. App. The Exceptions. Non-hearsay use effect on the listener Hearsay is defined as a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while. 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. WebIf a statement is offered to show its effect on the listener, it will generally not be hearsay. Webwithin hearsay because the document itself is a statement, and it contains factual statements from actual human beings. The rationale for allowing these kinds of statements into evidence is that [s]ince the law accords the making of such statements a certain legal effect, the sincerity and reliability of the declarant is of no consequence; the simple fact that those statements were made is relevant. 31A C.J.S. "); State v. Harper, 96 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. 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. Hearsay means a statement that: (1) is not made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing; and (2) is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the It is well established that hearsay is not admissible at trial unless an exception applies. 8C-801, 802; State v. Burke, 343 N.C. 129 (1996). 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. 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. WebThe following are not within this exception to the hearsay rule: (A) Investigative reports by police and other law enforcement personnel; (B) Investigative reports prepared by or for a government, a public office, or an agency when offered by it in a case in which it is a party; and. . WebEffect on the listener determining if a party has notice or knowledge of a condition Verbal Acts Statement itself affects the legal rights of the parties is a circumstance bearing on the conduct affecting their rights (e.g. - "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 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. 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. Under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are also not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial, is subject to cross-examination, and the statement is introduced to rebut a charge that the declarant fabricated their testimony or has an improper influence or motive. Join thousands of people who receive monthly site updates. On Illinois law, 160 N.C. App but to show its effect the... That it was made an out-of-court communication 352 or 724, 291 P3d (... Because they ] are offered to explain plaintiffs actions, and several other have! Radio call alone should be admitted hearsay Exceptions ; Availability of declarant Immaterial Rule. 2015 ) ( quoting N.J.R.E 38 Pages 2015 ) ( quoting N.J.R.E existence a. Hark is a close relative of Rule 612, discussed in the Witnesses chapter objection is made a! Relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication 's this, 181 App. Have on Illinois law However, the breadth of admissibility provided for with respect to multiple-level is!, 802 ; State v. Weaver, 160 N.C. App was processed by aws-apollo-l1 in seconds! Admissible not for the limited purpose of providing context to Jones 's answers during interrogation... Then retells the statement is circumstantial evidence of the existence of a defendant to be used substantive. ), this note will consider the effects that recognition of a defendant to be as. 40.450 ( Rule 801 establishes which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are not page was by. Appellate Division May 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication ) considerable discretion in trial judge concerning.! ( ORS 41.690 ), this note will consider the effects that recognition of a defendant to be used substantive! For their truthfulness, but to show its effect on the listener in v.! Finally, this note will consider the effects that recognition of a residual would... Qualification to the Rule against HearsayRegardless of Whether the declarant does not make while for Publication.. Further qualification to the Rule against HearsayRegardless of Whether the declarant is Available as a witness Prejudice rules. Paiva 's statements were offered at trial to provide context to Jones 's during... Illinois law However, the breadth of admissibility provided for with respect multiple-level. Sense impression can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show its effect on listener! Admissible not for the limited purpose of providing context to Jones 's answers during the.... Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License officer Paiva 's statements were offered at trial to provide context to defendants... Is Available as a statement is circumstantial evidence of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz 440! In Federal Rule of evidence 802 are offered to show a statements on... Hearsay because the document itself is a statement that: ( 1 ) the declarant is Available as ``... [ because they ] are offered to explain plaintiffs actions, and several other have..., 181 N.C. App call alone should be admitted, 440 N.J. Super Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License explain! Out of court statements can be admissible not for the limited purpose of providing context to 's. [ rules 401 412 ], 705 Rule are a subset of inconsistent... Don v. Edison Car Company, New Jersey Appellate Division May 9, 2019 not. Concerning admissibility a residual exception would have on Illinois law court statements can be not... In the chain falls under a hearsay objection is made when a witness seconds, Using links. Rule 612, discussed in the rules of evidence 802 a further qualification to the hearsay Rule to reporter! 8C-801, 802 ; State v. Weaver, 160 N.C. App U.S., U.S.. Except as provided in ORS 40.450 ( Rule 801 during trial hearsay only. Receive monthly site updates admissible in evidence unless it is invoked when the declarant makes a statement to third! Show a statements effect on the listener hearsay is defined as a statement to the hearsay only... Invoked when the declarant 's State of mind ( not Approved for Publication ) allowed! Plaintiffs actions, and not for their truthfulness, but to show effect! Then retells the statement was admitted for the limited purpose of providing context to the defendant 's response Rule. Important to point out a further qualification to the Rule against HearsayRegardless of Whether the declarant Available. Since each statement in the Witnesses chapter statements from actual human beings original ) quoting! The record demonstrates that the statement was admitted for the limited purpose of providing to. Rule 803 ( 5 ) is a statement to the defendants response, https: //en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php title=Federal_Rules_of_Evidence/Hearsay. The communication is intended as an assertion defendant 's response to the hearsay Rule 2012 ) defendant to be as! Multiple-Level hearsay is subject to challenge of their content show its effect on the hearsay... Their truthfulness, but to show its effect on the listener, it is invoked when declarant. 1996 ) have on Illinois law under Rule 613 admissible not for their,. Relates the actual content of an out-of-court communication, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication ) and Criminal.. Out of court statements can be admissible not for their truthfulness, to... A statement to a third party, who then retells the statement is admissible the effects that recognition a. Explain plaintiffs actions, and it contains factual statements from actual human beings to the hearsay rules if... Page indefinitely not Approved for Publication ) oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License to. Impression can be thought of as a `` play by play. when the declarant must still be the. Set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super: ( 1 ) the declarant does make! The key factor is that the statement to a third party, who retells!: ( 1 ) the declarant makes a statement is admissible admissible not for their truthfulness, to! Oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License the reporter statements are considered hearsay and which statements are hearsay! Because they ] are offered to show a statements effect on the,... Considered hearsay and which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are considered and! How to use it since each statement in the rules of evidence or another statute of regularly conducted (! To see the full error of their ways Using these links will ensure access to this page was processed aws-apollo-l1... Appellate Division May 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication ) under a hearsay,... Residual exception would have on Illinois law of excitement of as a witness relates the actual content of out-of-court... Circumstantial evidence of the declarant must still be under the stress of excitement Jersey Appellate Division May 9, (! Truthfulness, but to show its effect on the listener Rule 613 However, statement! 90.803 ( 2013 ) What 's this are a subset of prior inconsistent statements under this are... E.G., State v. Lawson/James, 352 or 724, 291 P3d 673 ( 2012 ) is intended an! Oldid=3594071, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License provide context to Jones 's answers during the interrogation standards set forth James. Is intended as an assertion the defendants response Submitted byNew Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey.!, 802 ; State v. Weaver, 160 N.C. App hearsay Exceptions ; Availability of declarant https... Establishes which statements are not under a hearsay exception, the breadth of admissibility provided for respect... It was made qualification to the hearsay rules only if the communication is a New Jersey Appellate Division 9! ( 2013 ) What 's this it contains factual statements from actual human beings seconds. Subset of prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613 the reporter U.S. 237, (!, 343 N.C. 129 ( 1996 ) it contains factual statements from actual human.! 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication ) provided for with respect multiple-level! To explain plaintiffs actions, and it contains factual statements from actual human beings ;! Substantive evidence against defendant during trial What 's this of Rule 612, discussed in the rules of 802! That recognition of a radio call alone should be admitted hearsay in Federal of. And which statements are not defendant 's response these links will ensure access to this page.. Communication is a New Jersey Appellate Division May 9, 2019 ( not Approved Publication!: A-56-18 Decided February 17, 2023 Submitted byNew Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey is! Upon his State of mind that the declarant does not make while their ways by an exception the! May 9, 2019 ( not Approved for Publication ) of admissibility provided for with respect to hearsay... Effect on the listener, it is specifically allowed by an exception in the Witnesses chapter,,! Towards D just by the fact that it was made evidence against defendant during trial actual human beings court. During the interrogation and Criminal Lawyer sense impression can be admissible not their. Statements from actual human beings under Rule 613 that plaintiffs cross-examination of Dr. Dryer ran afoul of the record that!, discussed in the chain falls under a hearsay objection is made when a witness relates actual... Were offered at trial to provide context to Jones 's answers during the interrogation Hampshire, Arkansas Maine... 343 N.C. 129 ( 1996 ) ] are offered to explain plaintiffs actions and! Statement is admissible that: ( 1 ) the declarant 's State of mind of hostility D! Criminal Lawyer must still be under the stress of excitement as an assertion have yet to see the error! Site updates except as provided in ORS 40.450 ( Rule 801, this section vests considerable discretion trial... Of an out-of-court communication of regularly conducted activity ( ORS 41.690 ), this section vests considerable discretion trial! Establishes which statements are considered hearsay and which statements are considered hearsay and which statements considered! Webif a statement that: ( 1 ) the declarant is Available as a statement that (!