Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence

[Khana09]

I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU GUYS TO DO MY HOMEWORK. I re-edited my post based on the first persons response below. I am simply asking if you agree with my decision on admitting the evidence based on admissions and implied admissions. Or, if you simply disagree, please help me understand why.

This is my FIRST essay on hearsay evidence, and hearsay is confusing to me! Well, not hearsay, but the exceptions!

Here are the elements:
Victim: Tom Goodguy
Suspect: Harry Nasty
Facts: Harry comes up to Tom and says, "I hate your guts and if you don't et out of my sight immediately, I am going to take you apart." Tom replied, "Harry, I'm not sure why you have it in for me, but I can only guess it is because I'm dating Pricilla Pretty, your former girlfriend and you can't stand seeing her with anyone else. Besides, I don't like you either, because of the way you treated her." Harry then tells Tom, "That has nothing to do with it. I hate you because you're ugly and you always get high scores on your tests and raise the curve for everyone else in the class and I am going to make it tough on you, if you dont stay out of my sight." The entire conversation was overheard by Willie Nosey. Later that same day, Tom comes out to the student parking lot and finds that all 4 of his tires have been slashed. He immediately calls campus security. Officer Constable asked Tom if he had any idea who might have slashed his tires. Tom told Officer Constable the only person he knew who had any reason to do something like that was Harry and told Officer Constable the argument that had took place between the two earlier in the day and that he knew Willie had witnessed the whole thing. Officer Constable proceeded to admissions, found out Harry's class schedule, went to Harry's class, and stopped Harry as soon as class was let out. Officer Constable said he needed to speak to harry about an incident with Tom's car. Just then, Justin Time, another student in the class came up to them and said in a very loud voice, "Harry, I know you slashed the tires on Tom's car, because I heard you tell your friend Paul, you were going down to the parking lot to see if you could find Tom's car and if you could find it, you were going to 'cut it up'." Harry did not say anything in response to Justin's accusation. As soon as Officer Constable heard Justin's remark, he told Harry he was not free to leave, and that he needed to be questioned, and then informed Harry of his Miranda rights. Now, Harry says he won't say anything until he had an opportunity to speak to his lawyer.

AT TRIAL, D.A. Harriet Hardball seeks to introduce the following evidence: 1. the testimony of Tom about what Harry had said in their argument. 2. the testimony of Willie about what he overheard during the argument. 3. the testimony of Officer Constable about what Justin had said and that Harry had remained silent and 4. that Harry refused to talk with Constable when Constable detained him. Harry's defense attorney, Ken Technical, objects to each of these pieces of evidence being introduced.

On what grounds can defense, Ken Technical, object? What are the reponses the DA can make? What is the ruling on the admissibility of each evidence?

Basically, I decided that everything that the DA is introducing is hearsay, because there was no circumstantial evidence being introduced. Now, I'm having a problem determing the EXCEPTION TO HEARSAY. The only one I found was the "Admissions Exception" which involves the admission made by the accused. I also thought number 4 would be "IMPLIED ADMISSIONS" because Harry remained silent in the face of a charge to which a person would normally respond were it untrue.

Help?

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by Khana09

DON'T answer UNLESS you have knowledge in the legal field, are a member of the bar association, or if you are in school studying law.

Pretty rude to pop in and demand who can and cannot answer.
It looks like you forgot to read the disclaimer when you signed up.

This is my FIRST essay on hearsay evidence, and hearsay is confusing to me! Well, not hearsay, but the exceptions!

This is not a homework helpline.

Help?[/quote]

No.

[Khana09]

Originally Posted by Stevef

Pretty rude to pop in and demand who can and cannot answer.
It looks like you forgot to read the disclaimer when you signed up.


This is not a homework helpline.

Help?

No.[/quote]

I said that so I wouldn't receive repugnant responses like yours.
And I know this is not a homework help line, if you didn't finish reading it, I already made my decision on admissions and implied admissions. I just wanted to see the response of others to see if my answers were similar. But thanks for your help anyways.

[Zigner]

US Law Only!

[Khana09]

What are you talking about? This does pertain to US Law!! DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY EVEN ARE?? Wow....

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Khana09

What are you talking about? This does pertain to US Law!! DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY EVEN ARE?? Wow....

Yep, I know what they are. However, you don't know how to follow rules.

[IsabellaSoriano]

fascinating story!!!

[dave33]

Some of those statements or all may be admissable under the excited utterance clause. In this situation that is something you should look into. In other words, if someone heard another person confess to murder soon after it took place the confession would most likely be admissable under this clause. Although, I don't know what state you are in so this may not exist in your area. An excited utterance is something that is said in the heat of the moment. Each situation is different and of course the lawyers arguements and the judges interpretation is key to the admissability of the evidence.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by dave33

Some of those statements or all may be admissable under the excited utterance clause. In this situation that is something you should look into. In other words, if someone heard another person confess to murder soon after it took place the confession would most likely be admissable under this clause. Although, I don't know what state you are in so this may not exist in your area. An excited utterance is something that is said in the heat of the moment. Each situation is different and of course the lawyers arguements and the judges interpretation is key to the admissability of the evidence.

Not to mention what state it occurs in

[Khana09]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Not to mention what state it occurs in

Thank you to the both of you for your help! I greatly appreciate it! I'm in the state of california, but my professor, who is an active Judge says we can use any of the 14 exceptions to hearsay which include excited utterances. I was just reading about that one, but I thought it was when the declarant was under stress of excitement CAUSED by the event, in which the DA is introducing element 3 which states, "the testimony of Officer Constable about what Justin had said and that Harry had remained silent." So, factually, Harry remained silent in elements 3 and 4, and element 4, I am allowing based on implied admissions. Wow, I can't believe I just wrote all that! This is helping me understand hearsay more! Thanks again! =)

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Khana09

Thank you to the both of you for your help! I greatly appreciate it! I'm in the state of california, but my professor, who is an active Judge says we can use any of the 14 exceptions to hearsay which include excited utterances. I was just reading about that one, but I thought it was when the declarant was under stress of excitement CAUSED by the event, in which the DA is introducing element 3 which states, "the testimony of Officer Constable about what Justin had said and that Harry had remained silent." So, factually, Harry remained silent in elements 3 and 4, and element 4, I am allowing based on implied admissions. Wow, I can't believe I just wrote all that! This is helping me understand hearsay more! Thanks again! =)

We don't do homework. I'm sorry you feel such a sense of entitlement.

[HappyWanderer]

I've heard looking for the answer is a sure way to fail. My friends who are lawyers look for the questions and go through their whole outline on each case. That way they don't forget obvious things. See:

[url=http://www.oup.com.au/highereducation/learning_exchange/thinking_like_a_lawyer]Thinking like a Lawyer - Oxford University Press[/url]

[dave33]

Also, something I feel is just as important as the law, as I eluded to earlier is the interpretation. Although you may feel 100% confident on how you see things, the d.a. and judge may disagree. The d.a. may disagree simply because it is bad for his case. I have seen and heard judges make rulings that clearly defy the most common interpretation of a statute. I believe his rulings are made with just the law in mind. I also think it is extremely important when fighting close issues such as this that the judge hold defense counsel in a good light. If the judge has a high regard for your lawyer than things seem to happen in your favor more often. I would estimate 90-95% of cases end in plea agreements and the few cases that are left and are represented by the public defender almost always lose. Do everything in your power not to be argueing this issue with a p.d. I would say w/out a nice sum of money and a respected defense councel that has para-legals to do research and plenty of other resources this case would almost certainly be a loser. I would be surprised w/out plenty of case law to defend your position if you even won a motion hearing. Welcome to the criminal justice (lol) system. goodluck.

[HappyWanderer]

I don't think the dude is talking about reality. I think he's talking about school.