Prior inconsistent statements : Florida allows the pre-trial statement of a declarant to be used at a trial if the prior statement conflicts with their trial testimony.Ĭertain hearsay statements may be admitted only if the person who originally made the declaration is unable to testify.Statements made for medical treatment: Statements such as “I can’t feel my arms” or “I vomited up blood” are admissible based on the premise that people will be truthful when their health is at stake.For example, Joe can take the stand to testify that he heard Jane say, “I’m so upset because it’s raining.” Present sense impressions: Testimony about what a person was experiencing the moment they said something can be admissible as hearsay.Examples include “You shot me!” and “That man grabbed my purse!” Excited utterances: A statement motivated by stress is generally admissible, provided the witness actually heard the person say it.In certain situations a hearsay statement made by a third party can be admitted into evidence even if the original declarant is available to to testify. Generally speaking, they might be broken up into three categories of circumstance. There are, however, numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. The attorney for the other side is unable to cross-examine the witness.The judge and /or jury cannot see the person to assess the demeanor and credibility of the witness.The person who originally made the statement is not present to state his or her exact words leaving room for misinterpretation.Hearsay, which might include oral testimony and sometimes written documents, is not typically admissible as evidence for three reasons: So a hearsay statement is often prefaced by the courtroom witness testifying, “He told me…” or “She said to me that….” In essence, it is a statement elicited of a witness where the witness is repeating what she or he was told by someone else. Court of Appeals confirmed that, in addition to contemporaneity and spontaneity, the “trial court must be assured that the declarant of the hearsay statement personally perceived the event described.In court proceedings, hearsay is a statement made out- of- court coming in for the truth of the matter asserted. In distinguishing between excited utterances and present sense impressions, it explained that the “time within which an excited utterance may be made is measured by the duration of the stress, while present sense impressions may be made only while the declarant is actually perceiving the event, or immediately thereafter – a more circumscribed time period than that permitted for excited utterances.” 2004). The exception was defined to include “statements describing or explaining events which the declarant is observing at the time he or she makes the declaration or immediately thereafter.” Id.at 1276. The exception was formally recognized in D.C. This will serve as a check on the accuracy of the observation. Finally, the statement will usually have been made to a third person (the witness who subsequently testifies to it) who was also present at the time and who presumably made the the same observation. Second, because the statement must have been made contemporaneously with the observation, there should be little or no time for calculated misstatement. First, because the statement describes events at or near the time they are happening, there should not be any problems caused by the loss of the declarant’s memory. 1992).Īccording to McCormick on Evidence § 271, we can assume the reliability of such statements for three reasons. A present sense impression differs from an excited utterance in that a shocking or startling event need not cause it, and the statement must describe what is perceived rather than reacting to it. The “present sense impression” exception to the hearsay rule allows into evidence an out-of-court statement that describes or explains an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event/condition or immediately thereafter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |