Evidence in Michigan Courts: Rule 801-807 Hearsay Evidence

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.

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

More Posts