Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 801-807 Hearsay Evidence

KOMORN LAW

STATE and FEDERAL
Aggressive Legal Defense
All Criminal Allegations / DUI / Drugs
Since 1993

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

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

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rules 901-903 Authenticating Evidence

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rules 901-903 Authenticating Evidence

Michigan Rules 901-903 - Evidence Authentication Ever wondered how that document or recording made its way into a Michigan courtroom? The answer lies in Michigan Rules of Evidence 901 to 903, which govern the crucial step of authenticating evidence. This article...

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 701-707 Opinions

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 701-707 Opinions

Opinions - Everyone's got one or two or three: A Look at Michigan Rules of Evidence 701-707 Lay Versus Expert Opinions (Rules 701 & 702) Before delving into specific rules, it's crucial to establish the fundamental distinction between lay witnesses and expert...

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 601-615 Witnesses

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 601-615 Witnesses

Navigating the Witness Box: A Look at Michigan Rules of Evidence 601-615 In the courtroom, witness testimony plays a crucial role in unveiling the truth and determining the outcome of a case. However, not everyone can simply walk into the courtroom and take the stand....

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 501 – Privilege in General

Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 501 – Privilege in General

Rule 501. Privilege; General Rule. Privilege is governed by the common law, except as modified by statute or courtrule.Have your rights been violated?Have your driving priviledges been revoked?Has your professional license been suspended?Have you been charged with a...

More Posts

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

read more
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more
Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive

Police say they can tell if you are too high to drive. Critics call it ‘utter nonsense’Haley Butler-Moore sped up to pass a semi on the highway when she suddenly saw the police lights. She’d left Albuquerque hours earlier, heading to a Halloween party in Denver. Tired...

read more
Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan

Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...

read more
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

read more
The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

read more
Michael Komorn-Criminal Defense Attorney

About Your Attorney

Attorney Michael Komorn

Categories

Other Topics

Driving Under the Influence

Michigan

Your Rights

Michigan Court of Appeals

Law Firm VIctories

Share This