Like to thank her husband JR for his love and sup- 638 ( 8th Cir therefore, assumed the.. - ( c ) ; if it is also worth noting the broad exemption under evidence Code, mostly of Are not admissible to prove that the Defendant had notice of the evidence Code 1200! 21 II. 801(d)(1)(A) and (C). For the general inquiry that courts should undertake when contemplating application of this rule, see Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 255 A.3d 452, 479-480 (Pa. 2021). Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (365906). Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (384746). Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing partys statement. The North Carolina courts have rejected the argument that statements made in response to questions lack the necessary spontaneity. See Majdic v. Cincinnati Machine Co., 370 Pa. Super. 803(6). Once a party is estopped from contesting a fact, no evidence need be introduced by an adverse party to prove it. Statement means a persons oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarants authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Hearsay means a statement that, (1)the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and. 620; amended February 19, 2014, effective April 1, 2014, 44 Pa.B. 620. 1200). 803(15) in that Pennsylvania does not include a statement made in a will. Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. . 2. 4017.1(g). The provisions of this Rule 804(b)(2) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. An inconsistent statement of a witness that does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule may still be introduced to impeach the credibility of the witness. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (365919). There is no set time interval following a startling event or condition after which an utterance relating to it will be ineligible for exception to the hearsay rule as an excited utterance. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (365905) to (365906). The exception is in effect a reiteration, in the context of hearsay, of Rule 405(a). Their use is provided for not only by Pa.R.E. 2005). Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule. 620. Abstract_Id=3499049 '' > Applying the hearsay Rule and its exception < /a > Jacob Adam Regar purposes of diagnosis! Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (365907) to (365908). Final Report explaining the March 1, 2017 amendment of paragraph (a)(3) published with the Courts Order at 47 Pa.B. 1. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the On June 30, 2016, the California Supreme Court published it's ruling in the case of People v. Sanchez, (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, which completely changed an attorney's ability to present hearsay evidence through expert testimony and which has created new and significant challenges to dealing with hearsay evidence. (b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. 651 (February 2, 2013). 1639; amended March 29, 2001, effective April 1, 2001, 31 Pa.B. However, it appears to be broader than the requirement for a present sense impression. (ii)defendants attorney or, if unrepresented, the defendant, does not file and serve a written demand for testimony in lieu of the certification within 10 days of service of the notice. 620. Hearsay statements are . For example, in civil cases, all or part of a deposition may be admitted pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. A could also argue that B's statement is admissible hearsay in California because it is facebook; twitter; pintrest; instagram; Gehre S Law. 1623. He took my purse! might be offered to show why the listener chased and tackled someone). 803(25). 803(7), i.e., to allow evidence of the absence of a record of an act, event, or condition to be introduced to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence thereof, if the matter was one which would ordinarily be recorded. Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 amendments published with the Courts Order at 43 Pa.B. Pennsylvania has not adopted F.R.E. The adoption of the language of the Federal Rule is not intended to change existing law. A statement that: (A)a reasonable person in the declarants position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarants proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarants claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and. This rule is identical to F.R.E. Final Report explaining the March 10, 2000 changes updating the seventh paragraph of the Comment published with the Courts Order at 30 Pa.B. 803(15) differs from F.R.E. Heres what you need to know about those exceptions. For example, one or more statements may constitute an offer, an acceptance, a promise, a guarantee, a notice, a representation, a misrepresentation, defamation, perjury, compliance with a contractual or statutory obligation, etc. The prosecutor stated the evidence was only for "the effect on the listener" (and so not for the truth), and the court allowed the testimony for that purpose. Pa.R.E. 804 Exceptions to the Rule Against HearsayWhen the Declarant is Unavailable as a Witness. Attacking and Supporting the Declarants Credibility. See Comment to Pa.R.E. Web(B) the declarants attendance or testimony, in the case of a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(2), , or . See Pickens Estate, 163 Pa. 14, 29 A. WebNon Hearsay due to effect on listener vs state of mind exception. evidence code section 1350 establishes a hearsay exception in serious felony cases for out-of-court statements made by an unavailable witness when "there is clear and convincing evidence that the declarant's unavailability was knowingly caused by, aided by, or solicited by the party against whom the statement is offered for the purpose of United States v Robinzine, 80 F2d 246 (CA 7, 1996) People v Jones (On Rehearing After Remand), 228 Mich App 191 (1998) 2. . HEARSAY ARGUMENTS 1893 A. 7111. 5936. Hearsay and The Truth of the Matter (B)is now offered against a party who hador, in a civil case, whose predecessor in interest hadan opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination. The Judicial Code provides for the use of depositions in criminal cases. This rule is identical to F.R.E. Hearsay Exception; Declarant Unavailable Hearsay evidence is often inadmissible at trial. 4. Numerous exceptions to the Rule Against hearsay was designed to prevent gossip from being offered to convict someone, 2007 ; Interrogation Accusations and Opinions hearsay can not be used as evidence at trial section explaining the admissibility a. On rare occasion, hearsay may be admitted pursuant to a federal statute. (1) Prior statement by witness. The provisions of this Rule 803(17) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. In a dependency hearing, an out-of-court statement of a witness under 16 years of age, describing certain types of sexual abuse, may be admitted pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. An understanding of the rules of evidence is one of the reasons it is important to hire legal counsel. The provisions of this Rule 803(8) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 2. A reputation among a persons family by blood, adoption, or marriageor among a persons associates or in the communityconcerning the persons birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history. 803(8) insofar as it reflects the hearsay exception for public records provided in 42 Pa.C.S. Section 1240 - Present sense The change is not substantive. Article 4 - SPONTANEOUS, CONTEMPORANEOUS, AND DYING DECLARATIONS. Pa.R.E. Witness is on stand and can't remember. 1623. 620; reserved March 1, 2017, effective April 1, 2017, 47 Pa.B. and Trust Co. v. Rosenagle, 77 Pa. 507 (1875). This is so because the statement is not being offered to prove its truth but rather to prove the effect that thestatement had or should have had on the listener. (Added to NRS by 1971, 795) NRS 51.115 Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. 620; reserved March 1, 2017, effective April 1, 2017, 47 Pa.B. Statements properly within this exception require, from the subjective standpoint of the declarant, a sufficiently startling experience suspending reflective thought. State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 86 (1985). The Rule Against hearsay | Federal < /a > Code 1200 ( a ) ; see-5-also United v.. ( Added to NRS by 1971, 795 ) NRS 51.115 statements for purposes medical. One difference is that Pa.R.E. In a criminal case, however, hearsay that is offered against a defendant under an exception from the hearsay rule provided by these rules or by another rule or statute may sometimes be excluded because its admission would violate the defendants right to be confronted with the witnesses against him under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or to be confronted with the witnesses against him under Article I, 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See Pa.R.E. Division 9. Rule 803(2) provides a hearsay exception for [a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.. The provisions of this Rule 803(16) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 804(b)(4) differs from F.R.E. . See Pa.R.E. . Sometimes a statement has direct legal significance, whether or not it is true. On occasion, hearsay may be admitted pursuant to another rule promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. An expert medical witness may base an opinion on the declarants statements of the kind discussed in this rule, even though the statements were not made for purposes of treatment, if the statements comply with Pa.R.E. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 803(11). Pa.R.E. Using the Rules of Evidence in our Northern California Civil Court Cases a shooter who says I am Superman may not be sane); Time/place and the presence of the speaker (ex. F.R.E. When the statement is made contemporaneously with the event or condition, this requirement is satisfied. 7348 (November 26, 2022). The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if: (A)the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it; (B)the record is kept in a public office; and. Under this argument, A is offering B's question to show that A inferred from B's statement that B knew A's usual numbers. 620; reserved March 1, 2017, effective April 1, 2017, 47 Pa.B. 620; amended October 25, 2018, effective December 1, 2018, 48 Pa.B. In a criminal or civil case, an out-of-court statement of a witness 12 years of age or younger, describing certain kinds of sexual abuse, may be admitted pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 2. The provisions of this Rule 803(15) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. In subsequent litigation, the convicted party is estopped from denying or contesting any fact essential to sustain the conviction. Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity (Not Adopted). When the declarant is unidentified, the proponent shall show by independent corroborating evidence that the declarant actually perceived the startling event or condition. CJI2d Preliminary Instructions charge contains a section explaining the admissibility of a statement offered not for its truth. For example, in State v. Morgan, 359 N.C. 131, 155 (2004), a declarants statement to the defendants brother that the declarant needed help because the defendant was tripping fell within this exception because it explained the defendants condition. 806 makes no reference to Rule 801(d)(2). 620; amended November 9, 2016, effective January 1, 2017, 46 Pa.B. The provisions of this Rule 803(19) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. . 806 is consistent with Pennsylvania law. A statement of the declarants then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarants will. (B)another person concerning any of these facts, as well as death, if the declarant was related to the person by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the persons family that the declarants information is likely to be accurate. 101(b). It is not hearsay either because it is an operative legal fact or because it is relevant to prove the effect upon the hearer of the statement, defendant. not hearsay. If offered against a defendant in a criminal case, an entry in a record may be excluded if its admission would violate the defendants constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him or her, see Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009); however, forensic laboratory reports may be admissible in lieu of testimony by the person who performed the analysis or examination that is the subject of the report, see Pa.R.Crim.P. . 620; amended March 1, 2017, effective April 1, 2017, 47 Pa.B. 63 F.3d 1267 ( 3d Cir to abuse, however not having attained 13 years or persons. 3. Recorded recollection is dealt with in Pa.R.E. (16)Statements in Ancient Documents. See generally State v. Anthony, 354 N.C. 372, 403 (2001) (shooting victims statement to a neighbor, [t]ake care of my boys, was admissible under this exception). (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Dupree, 706 F.3d 131, 136 (2d Cir. 804(a)(3) in that it excepts from this rule instances where a declarant-witnesss claim of an inability to remember the subject matter of a prior statement is not credible, provided the statement meets the requirements found in Pa.R.E. This differing organization is consistent with Pennsylvania law. 801(d)(1)(C) in several respects. Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Courts Order at 43 Pa.B. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 545 Pa. 487, 681 A.2d 1288 (1996). 1639; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 803(13). See Williams v. McClain, 520 A.2d 1374 (Pa. 1987); Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 345 A.2d 605 (Pa. 1975). 803(6) applies to records of an act, event or condition, but does not include opinions and diagnoses. 5985.1. 803 Exceptions to the Rule Against HearsayRegardless of Whether the Declarant is Available as a Witness, Pa.R.E. This differing organization is consistent with Pennsylvania law. 1623. Even body language in for the truth of the evidence Code 1200 is the declarant, who the! A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization. (C)the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness. 5328(d) and 6103(b). statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay." 4020, or a video deposition of an expert witness may be admitted pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. . Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. 613. The admissibility of a statement declarant perceived it hearsay if effect on listener hearsay california describing explaining A is the California statute that makes hearsay generally inadmissible in court. Visit Westlaw provided courtesy of Thomson Reuters Westlaw, the industry-leading online legal research system Code 1220 declarants! Final Report explaining the March 29, 2001 revision of the Comment published with the Courts Order at 31 Pa.B. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (384746) and (365915). 1627 (March 18, 2017). 803.1(4). California may have more current or accurate information. These statements are generally inadmissible due to their lack of reliability. * (a) "Hearsay evidence" is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that But this paragraph (a) does not apply if the statements proponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarants unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the declarant from attending or testifying. Statements of children not having attained 13 years or incapacitated persons describing acts of physical 2803.2. CJI2d Preliminary Instructions charge contains a section explaining the admissibility of a statement offered not for its truth. See, e.g., In re J.S.B., 183 N.C. App.192, 200 (2007). 1976). On analysis, absence of an entry in a business record is circumstantial evidenceit tends to prove something by implication, not assertion. 1623. This requirement has not been frequently litigated. The basic rule provides that statements (written or spoken) other than those made by a testifying witness at the hearing are inadmissible for proving the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Facsimile: 415-241-7340 . Code 1220, et seq. See 42 Pa.C.S. Principles of logic and internal consistency have led Pennsylvania to reject this rule. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (365907). The prosecutor stated the evidence was only for "the effect on the listener" (and so not for the truth), and the court allowed the testimony for that purpose. State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 354-55 (2005) (a statement offered to explain subsequent conduct was not offered for its truth and thus was not hearsay); State v. For something to be hearsay, it does not matter whether the statement was oral or written. Comment rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. 574. 620. 574. Hearsay Evidence. A video deposition of a medical witness, or any expert witness, other than a party to the case, may be introduced in evidence at trial, regardless of the witnesss availability, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. (20)Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. This rule is identical to F.R.E. The provisions of this Rule 803(7) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 7. Plaintiff offers testimony by a police officer that upon arriving at the accident scene he spoke with an occurrence witness, Mary Jane, who told him arguably , in effect an assertion of the existence of the condition and hence properl y includable within the hearsa y concept." FindLaw Codes are provided courtesy of Thomson Reuters Westlaw, the industry-leading online legal research system. Hearsay is an evidence rule, contained in both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code ( Sec. Pa.R.E. Non Hearsay Statements Law and Legal Definition. No. The Federal Rules treat these statements as not hearsay and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). (1)Prior Inconsistent Statement of Declarant-Witness. Pa.R.E. Test Prep. WebHearsay Rule 803. However, it is broader in scope because an excited utterance (1) need not describe or explain the startling event or condition; it need only relate to it, and (2) need not be made contemporaneously with, or immediately after, the startling event. For example, a declarants statement may imply his or her particular state of mind, or it may imply that a particular state of mind ensued in the recipient. 1641 (March 25, 2000). Thus, out of court statements can be admissible not for their truthfulness, but to show a statement's effect on the listener. The provisions of this Rule 803(18) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. Business records; Learned treatises; Statements about reputation for character). See Commonwealth v. Cargo, 444 A.2d 639 (Pa. 1982). Ohio Lottery Claim Form, Pennsylvania has not adopted F.R.E. 807). 7436. San Francisco, CA 94102 . Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. However, the catchall is worth mention because it explains the general theory behind the exceptions overall hearsay is usually barred because it is unreliable but the exceptions make it admissible in circumstances that suggest the statements are indeed trustworthy. 802 in that it refers to other rules prescribed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and to statutes in general, rather than federal statutes. Pennsylvania has not adopted F.R.E. 803.1(3) allows the memorandum or record to be received as an exhibit, and grants the trial judge discretion to show it to the jury in exceptional circumstances, even when not offered by an adverse party. (2)Statement Under Belief of Imminent Death. 7111. 1. : //www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803 '' > Applying the hearsay Rule if the by the hearsay Rule excludes statements. 803(4) in that it permits admission of statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis only if they are made in contemplation of treatment. A statement which is not hearsay when offered for its. 49 U.S.C. Final Report explaining the November 9, 2016 revision of the Comment published with the Courts Order at 46 Pa.B. 5325 sets forth the procedure for taking depositions, by either prosecution or defendant, outside Pennsylvania. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. The relationship between the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment was explained by the United States Supreme Court in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155-56 (1970): While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exceptions as they existed historically at common law. WebThe following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Present Sense Impression. Example Of Federal State, Vote. The provisions of this Rule 803(14) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 613(c). The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (308922) to (308923) and (276587). Web90.803 - Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial. Hearsay is an evidence rule, contained in both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the California Evidence Code (Sec. 1. 8; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. "Hearsay is a statement, other than the one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.". 1999) ("Preliminary So, if you want to show the effect that the statement had on the listener, and that effect is relevant to the case, than it may not be hearsay at all. Pennsylvania treats a statement meeting the requirements of Pa.R.E. 804(b)(1). In Commonwealth v. Gore, 396 A.2d 1302, 1305 (Pa. Super. This rule differs from F.R.E. ARTICLE 1 - Confessions and Admissions 1220-1228.1 ARTICLE 2 California may have more current or accurate information. 803(22). Almost any statement can be said to explain some sort of conduct. 5328, 6103, and 6106 for authentication of public records. 803(1). University of Kentucky ; Course Title Law 805 ; Type ) Showing speaker & x27 Thomson Reuters Westlaw, the industry-leading online legal research system NRS by 1971 795! The exceptions to the hearsay rule in Rules 803, 803.1, and 804 and the exceptions 620. The Federal Rules also include a general catchall or residual exception ( Rule 807 ), which makes hearsay admissible when it has sufficient guarantees of There is no requirement that the physician testify as an expert witness. In most cases, the declarant will not be on the stand at the time when the hearsay statement is offered and for that reason the requirement of Pa.R.E. Top. This rule is identical to F.R.E. Rules 803 and 804 deal with exceptionsto the hearsay rulestatements which arehearsay, but are nevertheless admissible. Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. FRE 802: Rule Against Hearsay. Documents (Past recollection recorded, business Non-hearsay- Effect on listener Exception Contemporaneous statement Exception State of mind Conclusion The court should admit Andrews testimony concerning his Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 574 provides a mechanism for the admission of a forensic laboratory report supported by a certification. 803(18). The exceptions fall into two main groups, those applicable only when the declarant is unavailable to testify (ex. The provisions of this Rule 803(9) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (308928). (go to 803 & 804) For example: Prior inconsistent statements (613 & 801(d1A)) Once challenged, prior consistent statements Statements by, or attributed to, parties offered by a POTENTIALLY SUCCESSFUL HEARSAY ARGUMENTS .. 1894. "Should we do acheck?" . See In Re Estate of Kostik, 514 Pa. 591, 526 A.2d 746 (1987). See Louden v. Apollo Gas Co., 273 Pa. Super. 801(c), which defines hearsay, is consistent with Pennsylvania law, although the Pennsylvania cases have usually defined hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted instead of the definition used Pa.R.E. School University of Kentucky; Course Title LAW 805; Type. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (365916) to (365917). (c) Hearsay. (4)Prior Statement by a Declarant-Witness Who Claims an Inability to Remember the Subject Matter of the Statement. Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. admissible for the nonhearsay purpose of its effect on the listener to show his belief that the victim consented to sexual intercourse. This is not hearsay. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. 3. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (365915) to (365916). The provisions of this Rule 803(11) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. See Heddings v. Steele, 514 Pa. 569, 526 A.2d 349 (1987). ("FRE") 801 (c). The modern trend, however, is to consider whether the delay in making the statement provided an opportunity to manufacture or fabricate the statement. Smith, 315 N.C. at 87 (citation omitted). (2)Excited Utterance. The Federal Rules treat statements corresponding to Pa.R.E. The "explains conduct" non-hearsay purpose is subject to abuse, however. Guice, 141 N.C. App at 201 (declarant was crying and having difficulty breathing); State v. Thomas, 119 N.C. App. 801(a), (b) and (c). Pennsylvania law is in accord with the object of F.R.E. 801(c). 6104. 1712; amended March 24, 2000, effective March 25, 2000, 30 Pa.B. Effect on Listener: does not matter whether the statement was true or not, all that matters is the effect the statement had on the listener. Woolworth Co., 163 A. 562, 526 A.2d 1205 (1987). 7436. 803.1 Exceptions to the Rule Against HearsayTestimony of Declarant Necessary, and Pa.R.E. Jacob Adam Regar declarant & quot ; a statement or immediately after the declarant, who is the and. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Pa.R.E. Under Stress Caused by Event/Condition. The provisions of this Introductory Comment amended December 17, 2004, effective January 31, 2005, 35 Pa.B. 315 N.C. at 90. Exceptions to the Rule Against HearsayWhen the Declarant is Unavailable as a Witness. Further, statements to show the effect on the listener are not hearsay because they are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. (25)An Opposing Partys Statement. F.R.E. HypotheticalDefinition of Hearsay . 803(6) allows the court to exclude business records that would otherwise qualify for exception to the hearsay rule if the source of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness. The Federal Rule allows the court to do so only if either the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.. Pa.R.E. Hi all, I just had a problem with the answer being no because its not hearsay since it is being offered to In a criminal case, a deposition of a witness may be admitted pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. 4020(a)(3) and (5). KF8935.G523 2014 347.73'6--dc23 . Prior Pennsylvania case law, none of which is recent, limited the source to the persons family. A statement describing 1714 (April 3, 1999). Pennsylvania has not adopted F.R.E. Evidence (Law)--United States. Given the similarity of the values protected, however, the modification of a States hearsay rules to create new exceptions for the admission of evidence against a defendant, will often raise questions of compatibility with the defendants constitutional right to confrontation.