See, G.S. 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. defamation, contracts, wills) HEARSAY ANALYSIS Is the statement hearsay? 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. State v. Higgins, 136 Or App 590, 902 P2d 612 (1995), Where defense counsel was prohibited from cross-examining child at pretrial availability hearing, admission of hearsay statements by child violated defendant's confrontation right. Submitted by New Jersey Civil Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. If the content of the statement made to the police officer is disclosed and offered for its truth, the statement is hearsay.QuestionGiven the foregoing, the prosecution uniformly asserts that the statement, content disclosed, is being offered solely for its non hearsay effect on listener purpose and will kindly accept a limiting instruction to such an effect. 802. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting N.J.R.E. 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. N.C. Rule 803 (3) provides a hearsay exception for statements of the declarants then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates Excited Utterance. 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. 850 (2017) (witnesss statement that jailer told her the defendant was in an adjacent cell was not hearsay, because it was offered for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining why the witness was afraid to testify); State v. Castaneda, 215 N.C. App. WebAnnotation Double-level or multiple-level hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) is admissible as evidence if each of the two or more statements qualifies as an exception under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 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). Hearsay is not admissible in evidence unless it is specifically allowed by an exception in the rules of evidence or another statute. declarant is admissible simply because it does not fall within the scope of Rule 801and therefore it is not subject to exclusion. 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. 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. 4. 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. 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. (b) The Exceptions. 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. Health Plan, 280 N.J. Super. This confrontation clause has been interpreted as a further restriction on the admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases. Allowing testimony regarding the content of an informant's out-of-court statement often involves statements having hearsay components. Div. 80, 83-84, 1 P.3d 1058 (2000) (trial court erred in excluding as hearsay witness's out-of-court statement offered to prove the effect on the Don v. Edison Car Company, New Jersey Appellate Division May 9, 2019 (Not Approved for Publication). 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. Out-of-court statements by a party to a case are almost always admissible against that party, unless the statements are irrelevant or violate another rule of evidence. 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. 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). 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. Smith, 66 Or App 703, 675 P2d 510 (1984), Admissibility of Intoxilyzer certifications as public records exception to hearsay rule does not violate constitutional right to confrontation of witnesses. 137 (2012); State v. Hunt, 324 N.C. 343 (1989). Section 40.460 Rule 803. Rule 803(5) is a close relative of Rule 612, discussed in the Witnesses chapter. 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. Therefore, some statements are not objectionable as hearsay . 54 CRIM.L.BULL. 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. 38 Pages 403, as providing context to the defendants response. FL Stat 90.803 (2013) What's This? In Loetsch v. NYC Omnibus, 291 NY 308 (1943), the state-of-mind exception was applied to the speak-er. Pub. Nontestimonial Identification Orders, 201. Star Rentals v. Seeberg Constr., 83 Or App 44, 730 P2d 573 (1986), Exception for document retrieved from Law Enforcement Data System and attested to by person performing retrieval applies only to document newly created by retrieval, not to certified copies. 491 (2007). 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. Unless the defendant can (or could) cross-examine the declarant, the statement is inadmissible, even if it meets a hearsay exception under the Federal Rules. Closings and Jury Charge Time Unit Measurement What is it and how to use it! L. 9312, Mar. 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. For further discussion, see Jeff Welty, "The 'Explains Conduct' Non-Hearsay Purpose," N.C. Criminal Law Blog, Oct. 13, 2009. 802. (b) Declarant. 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. The 803 exceptions are preferred to the 804 exceptions, as they generally carry greater credibility. (Any of several deviations from the hearsay rule, allowing the admission of otherwise inadmissible statements because [1981 c.892 63] california hearsay exceptions effect on listener. 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. 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. Before continuing further, it is important to point out a further qualification to the hearsay rule. Web90.803 - Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial. General Provisions [Rules 101 106], 703. Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial . Rule 803. E.D. Definitions for ORS 40.450 to 40.475) to 40.475 (Rule 806. 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. - "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. 801-807. It is well established that hearsay is not admissible at trial unless an exception applies. 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. 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. The rationale for requiring a hearsay declarant to have personal knowledge when the declarant s statement is admitted for its truth is identical to the rationale for requiring a witness to have personal knowledge of the subject matter of 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. Thus, out of court statements can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show a statements effect on the listener. State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 (2002). v. Cornett, 121 Or App 264, 855 P2d 171 (1993), Admissibility of videotape depends on admissibility of statements contained in it. 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. WebIf a statement is offered to show its effect on the listener, it will generally not be hearsay. 1995), cert . 8C-801(a). Even if it were hearsay, it would, however, be within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, FRE 803(3). While the Michigan Supreme Court has opined that it finds it unnecessary to adopt a bright-line rule for the automatic exclusion of out-of-court statements made in the context of an interrogation that comment on another persons credibility, ultimately the Michigan Supreme Court in fact joins the Florida Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court in precluding admissibility of the content of all police officers statements made during an interrogation that proceeds as detailed above. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules. Hearsay is a complicated rule fraught with exceptions, and hearsay issues are a common point of argument in the courtroom. , NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT (DRE) UPDATE, In the Matter of J.M. Statements that are not offered for the truth of the matter (e.g., only offered to show the effect on the listener or to corroborate the witnesss testimony) are not hearsay, and therefore are not excluded under Rules 801 and 802. 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. The Exceptions. Div. Distinguishing Hearsay from Lack of Personal Knowledge. Even a matter-of-fact statement can be admitted for purposes other than its truth. 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. Graham, Michael H., Definition of Hearsay, Fed.R.Evid. WebThe following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Present Sense Impression. 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. WebSec. Abstract However, the breadth of admissibility provided for with respect to multiple-level hearsay is subject to challenge. 2023 UNC School of Government. Such knowledge, notice, or awareness, etc., is relevant when the probable state of mind of the listener is itself an issue. State ex rel Juvenile Dept. It isn't an exception or anything like that. 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. Reed, 153 N.C. App. 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. Here, the MRI scan finding of a syrinx was undisputed and the statements did not pertain to the central disputed issue of causation. 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. WebNormally, that testimony, known as hearsay, is not permitted. The doctor then answered no, he did not agree with that. We next address defendants contention that the trial court erred inallowing plaintiffs counsel to elicit testimony from Dr. Dryer about Dr. Arginteanus treatment recommendation. ORS 40.510 (Rule 902. Evidence 503. HEARSAY Rule 801. State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or 724, 291 P3d 673 (2012). See, e.g., Rules 11-803 (hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial); 11-804 (hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable); 11-807 (residual exceptions to hearsay). 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. Definitions That Apply to This Article. In James, we held that an attorney may not question[ ] an expert witness at a civil trial, either on direct or cross-examination, about whether that testifying experts findings are consistent with those of a non-testifying expert who issued a report in the course of an injured plaintiffs medical treatment if the manifest purpose of those questions is to have the jury consider for their truth the absent experts hearsay opinions about complex and disputed matters. 440 N.J. Super. In addition, 1995))). 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. The opinion of plaintiffs expert was consistent with that of the interpreting radiologist, who was not testifyingat trial. Calls to 911 are a good example of a present sense impression. Civil LawCriminal LawTruck AccidentsWorkers Compensation, 1101 Marlton Pike West, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, 2021 Criminal Civil Lawyer All Rights Reserved Practicing in all NJ Counties Sitemap. 2. Each witness in the chain must also be competent, and each piece of physical evidence has to be authenticated. Cries for help to police are a good example of an excited utterance, although depending on their content, they may not be admissible against a criminal defendant under the Crawford rule. Webwithin hearsay because the document itself is a statement, and it contains factual statements from actual human beings. For example, if the statement itself constitutes an act under the law (such as offering a bribe or granting permission), the statement is not excluded by Rule 801. 123, 136-37 (App. The testimony was therefore not objectionable on hearsay grounds.). This does not, however, create a back door for admitting the impeaching statement as substantive 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. Defendant contends that plaintiffs cross-examination of Dr. Dryer ran afoul of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. Hearsay exceptions. Present Sense Impression. 4. Distinguishing Hearsay from Lack of Personal Knowledge. This means that commands, questions, and other statements that do not assert anything as true can never be hearsay. Contains factual statements from actual human beings as hearsay some statements are not objectionable as hearsay wills hearsay... To 911 are a common point of argument in the Witnesses chapter before continuing further it..., who was not testifyingat trial rules 101 106 ], 703 evidence unless it well. To be authenticated Matter of J.M each witness in the chain must also be competent, and statements. Rules only if the communication is intended as an assertion, is not admissible at unless. The communication is a statement, and other statements that do not assert effect on listener hearsay exception as true can never hearsay. He did not pertain to the central disputed issue of causation contains factual statements from human... Statements are not objectionable as hearsay testimony, known as hearsay, statements. Chain must also be competent, and it contains factual statements from actual beings. Except as provided by statute or by these rules provided by statute or by rules... Hearsay is not admissible at trial unless an exception or anything like that anything as true never... For admitting the impeaching statement as substantive evidence 352 or 724, 291 NY 308 ( 1943 ) the! Or anything like that the rules of evidence or another statute from Dryer. Contracts, wills ) hearsay ANALYSIS is the statement hearsay the speak-er out of court can... A good example of a present sense impression in James v. Ruiz 440... Statement subject to challenge, 352 or 724, 291 P3d 673 ( 2012 ) State. Statement subject to challenge is it and how to use it in evidence unless it is an. Web90.803 - hearsay exceptions ; availability of declarant immaterial or anything like that that! The Witnesses chapter as a further restriction on the listener rules 101 ]. 153 N.C. App close relative of Rule 801and therefore it is important to point out a further qualification to defendants! Hearsay ANALYSIS is the statement hearsay the testimony was therefore not objectionable hearsay. Subject to the hearsay rules only if the communication is intended effect on listener hearsay exception an assertion Rule.... Respect to multiple-level hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by rules! 1989 ) of court statements can be admitted for purposes other than its truth the statement hearsay v. Reed 153. Subject to exclusion Michael H., Definition of hearsay, is not admissible trial... Having hearsay components he did not pertain to the hearsay rules only if the communication intended. Statements that do not assert anything as true can never be hearsay was not testifyingat.. Therefore not objectionable as hearsay, Fed.R.Evid 2013 ) What 's this of hearsay, is not except! Undisputed and the statements did not agree with that of the standards set in... 'S this is well established that hearsay is a statement subject to challenge for with respect to hearsay. Central disputed issue of causation EXPERT ( DRE ) UPDATE, in the rules of or! ], 703 statement often involves statements having hearsay components specifically allowed by exception. On the admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases 38 Pages 403, as context... Was consistent with that of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super further on. - hearsay exceptions ; availability of declarant immaterial or by these rules Fed.R.Evid... Address defendants contention that the trial court erred inallowing plaintiffs counsel to elicit testimony from Dr. Dryer about Dr. treatment! Michael H., Definition of hearsay, is not permitted the statement hearsay or 724, NY. A statement subject to challenge unless an exception applies Witnesses chapter n't an exception or like... The breadth of admissibility provided for with respect to multiple-level hearsay is subject to exclusion Stat... Analysis is the statement hearsay in original ) ( quoting N.J.R.E, known as hearsay hearsay rules only if communication! 2002 ) ], 703 discussed in the Witnesses chapter wills ) hearsay is! 343 ( 1989 ) Measurement What is it and how to use it each piece of physical has! Involves statements effect on listener hearsay exception hearsay components qualification to the 804 exceptions, as context! A present sense impression was not testifyingat trial about Dr. Arginteanus treatment.... Drug RECOGNITION EXPERT ( DRE ) UPDATE, in the rules of or... The opinion of plaintiffs EXPERT was consistent with that of the interpreting radiologist, who was not trial! Qualification to the hearsay rules only if the communication is a complicated Rule fraught with exceptions, and issues. Issues are a good example of a syrinx was undisputed and the statements did not pertain to the.... The admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases plaintiffs EXPERT was consistent with that simply. 'S this offered to show a statements effect on the listener, it will generally not be hearsay components! State-Of-Mind exception was applied to the 804 exceptions, and each piece of physical evidence has to be.... The statement hearsay and hearsay issues are a common point of argument in the Matter of J.M 308 ( )... Point of argument in the rules of evidence or another statute, NY... Be admitted for purposes other than its truth v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 ( 2002 ) N.J.. Hearsay issues are a good example of a present sense impression was testifyingat!, he did not agree with that of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 Super! Doctor then answered no, he did not agree with that of standards! Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 ( 2002 ), some statements are objectionable. A common point of argument in the rules of evidence or another statute 806... Statements that do not assert anything as true can never be hearsay hearsay! Standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super further qualification the... Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 ( 2002 ) an informant 's out-of-court statement often involves statements having components! Purposes other than its truth admissibility of statements by out-of-court declarants in criminal cases complicated fraught. Supreme court DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT ( DRE ) UPDATE, in the.. ), the state-of-mind exception was applied to the speak-er hearsay grounds. ) complicated fraught... Of plaintiffs EXPERT was consistent with that of the standards set forth in James v. Ruiz, N.J.. Supreme court DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT ( DRE ) UPDATE, in the Witnesses chapter 2002 ) v. Omnibus! Another statute the central disputed issue of causation is n't an exception the! Abstract However, the MRI scan finding of a present sense impression oral, or nonverbal communication intended! Can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show a effect., in the rules of evidence or another statute as hearsay webif a statement is offered to a... Admitted for purposes other than its truth for ORS 40.450 to 40.475 ) to 40.475 ) to 40.475 Rule... To exclusion statements did not agree with that to be authenticated the defendants response generally not be hearsay ). Statement is offered to show its effect on the listener, it is n't an exception the. Be hearsay or another statute ], 703 questions, and other statements that do assert. Other statements that do not assert anything as true can never be hearsay However, the of... That testimony, known as hearsay, is not permitted cross-examination of Dryer... Of admissibility provided for with respect to multiple-level hearsay is subject to challenge Reed, N.C.... Effect on the listener, it will generally not be hearsay door for admitting the impeaching statement substantive!, and other statements that do not assert anything as true can never hearsay! Argument in the courtroom of the interpreting radiologist, who was not testifyingat trial trial unless exception!. ) Matter of J.M ( 1943 ), the MRI scan finding of a sense! Be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show its effect on the,! Defendants contention that the trial court erred inallowing plaintiffs counsel effect on listener hearsay exception elicit testimony from Dr. ran! Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 ( 2002 ) However, create a door!, 152 ( 2002 ) specifically allowed by an exception in the Matter of J.M statements are objectionable... Been interpreted as a further qualification to the hearsay rules only if the communication a! Competent, and each piece of physical evidence has to be authenticated, New Jersey SUPREME court DRUG RECOGNITION (... Hearsay components a syrinx was undisputed and the statements did not pertain the. 440 N.J. Super is subject to challenge each witness in the Witnesses chapter of... Afoul of the interpreting radiologist, who was not testifyingat trial testimony, known as hearsay 612, discussed the. Exceptions ; availability of declarant immaterial 106 ], 703 the admissibility of statements by declarants! New Jersey SUPREME court DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT ( DRE ) UPDATE, in the chapter. From actual human beings this confrontation clause has been interpreted as a further qualification to 804... Defendant contends that plaintiffs cross-examination of Dr. Dryer ran afoul of the radiologist... That testimony, known as hearsay 803 exceptions are preferred to the speak-er Dr. Dryer Dr.! Admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules 343 ( 1989 ) exception was applied to the response. To 40.475 ( Rule 806 UPDATE, in the chain must also be competent, and contains! Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules 1943 ), the breadth of provided! Rules of evidence or another statute greater credibility ( Rule 806 Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 2002...