Michigan Rules of Evidence 801-807 Hearsay:
In the courtroom, truth-finding is paramount. Yet, not every statement offered as evidence directly reveals the truth. Enter the realm of hearsay, statements made out of court, and the complex rules governing their admissibility. In Michigan, Rules of Evidence 801-807 serve as the gatekeepers, determining which hearsay statements can cross the threshold and be heard by the jury.
Rule 801: Hearsay and its Exceptions
The battle begins with understanding the enemy – hearsay. Rule 801 defines it as a statement:
- Made outside of court: The statement cannot be made during the current trial or hearing by the person who made it (the declarant).
- Offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted: The statement’s purpose is not just to narrate an event, but to convince the jury of the truth of the matter it describes.
However, not all out-of-court statements are hearsay. Rule 801 itself provides several exceptions:
- Present sense impressions: Statements made about an ongoing event or sensation perceived by the declarant are admissible. Imagine a witness describing a car accident as it unfolds.
- Excited utterances: Statements made under the stress of a startling event, while still fresh in the declarant’s mind, can be admitted. Think of a person’s immediate cry for help after being robbed.
- State of mind: Statements revealing the declarant’s then-existing state of mind, such as intent, belief, or emotion, are admissible. For example, a suicide note expressing the writer’s intent to end their life.
Rule 802: The General Hearsay Ban – A Wall with Cracks
While Rule 801 identifies the enemy, Rule 802 raises the barricades. It generally prohibits the admission of hearsay, recognizing the inherent danger of relying on uncross-examined statements. However, the rule isn’t a fortress—cracks exist in the form of numerous exceptions.
These exceptions fall into two broad categories:
- Unavailability of the declarant: When the declarant is unavailable to testify in court due to death, illness, or other legitimate reasons, certain hearsay statements become admissible. This includes prior statements made under oath (depositions or testimonies in other proceedings), dying declarations, and statements against interest.
- Reliability and trustworthiness: Even if the declarant is available, certain types of hearsay are admitted due to their inherent reliability and trustworthiness. These include business records, medical records, family records, public records, and certain statements about personal or family history.
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Second Amendment rights taken away?
Have you been charged with a crime?
Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Rules 803-806 – A Spectrum of Exceptions
Each exception in Rules 803-806 has its own specific requirements and nuances. For instance, Rule 803(a) allows business records to be admitted if they were kept in the regular course of business and meet certain foundational requirements. Rule 803(b) permits excited utterances only if made under the immediate stress of a startling event, while Rule 803(c) allows statements against interest if the declarant would have reasonably expected the statement to harm their legal position.
These rules provide a spectrum of exceptions, balancing the need for reliable evidence with the concerns over hearsay’s inherent dangers. Navigating this spectrum requires careful consideration of the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
![Komorn Law Established 1993-1-540-01 Komorn Law Established 1993](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Komorn-Law-Established-1993-1-540-01.jpg)
Rule 807: The Residual Exception – A Last Resort
Even after considering all established exceptions, some cases may still involve crucial hearsay evidence not neatly categorized. This is where Rule 807, the residual exception, steps in. It allows for the admission of hearsay that doesn’t fall under any other exception, but only if it meets four strict conditions:
- Equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness: The statement must have indicia of reliability comparable to those of the established exceptions.
- Material fact: The statement must be relevant to a significant issue in the case.
- More probative than any other available evidence: The statement must be the best evidence available on the issue at hand.
- Serves the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice: Admitting the statement must ultimately advance the goals of fair and just adjudication.
The residual exception is a powerful tool, but its use is limited and subject to careful judicial scrutiny.
Important:
This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.
Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts
![Attorney Michael Komorn Lectures Students at the U of M Law School](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/komorn_at_U_of_M_law_school_4_2_14.jpg)
Attorney Michael Komorn Lectures Students at the U of M Law School
I wanted to give a huge thanks to University of Michigan Law School Professors Howard Bromberg, Mark Osbeck and Law School class. This past Thursday I had the honor of being asked to speak about my favorite topics, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act and the practice...
![Jury Selection In Marihuana Cases](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Jury-800x3901.jpg)
Jury Selection In Marihuana Cases
A jury trial is fundamental to our democratic system of government. Every American citizen should embrace this responsibility by participating, and ensure justice prevails. by Michael Komorn I just picked a jury in a marihuana case, there were several perspective...
![Planet Green Trees Radio Episode 149-MSC People v. Koon](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Michael-Komorn1.jpg)
Planet Green Trees Radio Episode 149-MSC People v. Koon
The best resource for everything related to Michigan medical marijuana with your host Attorney Michael Komorn. Live every Thursday evening from 8 -10 pm eastern time. By Michael Komorn The Michigan Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion making a finding that...
![Polygraphs Proven Unreliable, Used for Police Intimidation](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Polygraph.jpg)
Polygraphs Proven Unreliable, Used for Police Intimidation
Polygraphs are widely recognized as unreliable yet police still use them to elicit confessions. By Michael Komorn Many states don’t allow polygraph test to be admitted in court because they are unreliable. Their lack of reliability is widely recognized by criminal...
![Arrests for DUI’s on the Rise](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Sobriety-Test-800x390.jpg)
Arrests for DUI’s on the Rise
By Michael Komorn Arrests for DUI’s have been on the rise across Michigan. This trend could drastically increase as The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has called on state authorities to reduce the legal limit to 0.05 percent. Currently, all 50 U.S. states...
![US District Court Judge rules police cannot enter a car without a warrant to facilitate a drug dog sniff](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GPS-scanner-800x390.jpg)
US District Court Judge rules police cannot enter a car without a warrant to facilitate a drug dog sniff
Federal Judge Applies GPS Ruling To Drug Dog Traffic Stop By Michael Komorn Last week, a judge with the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia applied the precedent to the common police practice of “permeation” where a police officer enters a...
![Drug Checkpoints: Unconstitutional](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/drug-checkpoints.jpg)
Drug Checkpoints: Unconstitutional
By Michael Komorn The Supreme Court ruled in City of Indianapolis V. Edmund that drug check points are unconstitutional. So what happens when you see one on the highway? Keep calm and carry on. Police, especially in the Mid-west, have been using drug check points as a...
![Knowing When to Exercise Your Rights](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/arrested-800x390.jpg)
Knowing When to Exercise Your Rights
Remember, even if you are doing nothing wrong, there are a number of different outcomes that can occur from a police encounter. The short list includes: 1) No action, no problems; 2) A warning or citation; 3) An arrest and/or criminal charges. Exercising your rights...
![Why Police Lie Under Oath](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/perjury.jpg)
Why Police Lie Under Oath
Thousands of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit...
![What Did I Just Get Charged With?](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Lansing-Capitol-800x390.jpg)
What Did I Just Get Charged With?
Below is a list of common drug offenses as defined by the State of Michigan. If it is your second offense, it is important you read statute 333.7413 below. 333.7413 Conviction of second or subsequent violation; penalty....