§802 Hearsay Rule

LibraryEvidence Restated Deskbook (2021 Ed.)

§802 Hearsay Rule

Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule.

Notes

Hearsay statements generally are not admissible "because . . . out-of-court statement[s] [are] not subject to cross-examination, [are] not offered under oath, and [are] not subject to the fact finder's ability to judge demeanor at the time the statement[s are] made." Bueneman v. Zykan, 52 S.W.3d 49, 56 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (citations omitted); State v. Taylor, 298 S.W.3d 482, 492 (Mo. banc 2009). But they are admissible when the statements fall within recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. State v. Winfrey, 337 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Mo. banc 2011) (citing State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373, 376 (Mo. banc 1997)); State v. Perdue, 317 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010); State v. Lucio, 247 S.W.3d 131, 134 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008).

Hearsay by inference also inadmissible absent an exception

Testimony that "invites the inference of hearsay" is also inadmissible. See:

· State v. Valentine, 587 S.W.2d 859, 861–62 (Mo. banc 1979) (the testimony of an officer set up circumstances that improperly invited the inference of hearsay because, by clear inference, the testimony of the officer showed that the alleged accomplice had implicated the defendant in the offense involved)
· State v. Logan, 809 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (the trial court erred in admitting testimony of the arresting officer that he arrested the defendant after talking to both the driver and the owner of the car that the defendant entered after approaching an attempted robbery victim—it constituted inferential hearsay and was erroneously admitted)
· State v. Bowens, 964 S.W.2d 232, 240–41 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (the trial court erred in allowing testimony of a police officer that he had talked to the person whom the defendant claimed to be with at the time of the crime and was unable to verify the defendant's alibi—"The quoted testimony clearly set up a set of circumstances that invited the inference of hearsay evidence, namely that [she] told [the officer] that defendant was not with her until midnight on the night in question.")

But the admission of inferential hearsay has been held harmless when there exists strong independent evidence of the defendant's guilt. Logan, 809 S.W.2d at 138; Bowens, 964 S.W.2d at 240–41. Moreover, the rule has been held not to apply when other reasonable inferences from the testimony could be drawn besides the inadmissible hearsay...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT