A defendant is on trial for burglary. At trial, a police officer testifies that shortly after the alleged incident, a witness who refused to come to court said, 'I saw someone wearing a red hat running from the scene of the burglary.' The prosecution seeks to admit this statement. What is the BEST characterization of this statement under the rules of evidence?
The statement is inadmissible hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The statement is non-hearsay because it describes the conduct observed by the unavailable witness and is admissible as a fact of the case.
The statement is admissible if the witness was unavailable and the prosecution asserts it through a witness under oath.
The statement is non-hearsay because it was made shortly after the incident and is part of the event itself.
The statement qualifies as hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that someone wearing a red hat was seen running from the scene of the burglary. Hearsay is excluded unless it falls under a recognized exception, which was not provided in this question. Statements like these must meet both the hearsay definition and the necessary exception to be admissible. Other answers may describe situations where similar statements could avoid hearsay classification, such as if offered for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted or properly falling within an exception, but such nuances are not present in this scenario.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What exactly is hearsay in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why do we have hearsay rules in court proceedings?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are some common exceptions to the hearsay rule?