Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Hearsay Within Hearsay
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Hearsay Within HearsayQuestion 1 of 20

At a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a police report. The report contains a transcription of a 911 call from a neighbor. The neighbor stated on the call, "I'm watching from my window right now. The man in the blue coat is trying to break into the house next door." The man in the blue coat was later identified as the defendant. The neighbor died before trial. The 911 operator who took the call is testifying.

The report is admissible as a public record, and the call is a present sense impression.
The report and statement are inadmissible because of the Confrontation Clause.
The report is inadmissible hearsay, but the operator could testify to the statement as a present sense impression.
The report is inadmissible against criminal defendants, and the statement is also hearsay.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Hearsay Within Hearsay

Practice Hearsay Within Hearsay in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Hearsay Within Hearsay, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

At a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a police report. The report contains a transcription of a 911 call from a neighbor. The neighbor stated on the call, "I'm watching from my window right now. The man in the blue coat is trying to break into the house next door." The man in the blue coat was later identified as the defendant. The neighbor died before trial. The 911 operator who took the call is testifying.

  1. The report is admissible as a public record, and the call is a present sense impression.
  2. The report and statement are inadmissible because of the Confrontation Clause.
  3. The report is inadmissible hearsay, but the operator could testify to the statement as a present sense impression. (correct answer)
  4. The report is inadmissible against criminal defendants, and the statement is also hearsay.
Explanation: This involves hearsay within hearsay. Under FRE 803(8)(A)(ii), law enforcement observations are inadmissible against defendants in criminal cases, so the police report is inadmissible. However, the 911 operator can testify directly about the neighbor's statement, which qualifies as a present sense impression under FRE 803(1) because the neighbor was describing events as they occurred. Emergency 911 calls are generally non-testimonial, avoiding Confrontation Clause issues.

Question 2

You are defending a client charged with bank robbery. The prosecution's key evidence is a note found at the scene. To connect the note to your client, the prosecution offers a page from a diary belonging to your client's ex-girlfriend. The entry reads: "My friend who works at the bank told me she recognized the handwriting on the robber's note. She said, 'I'm certain it was my old boyfriend's writing,' referring to the defendant." The ex-girlfriend will testify and authenticate the diary. The friend is unavailable.

  1. The entry is admissible as a recorded recollection.
  2. The entry is admissible because the friend's statement is a statement of identification.
  3. The entry is inadmissible because both the diary entry and the friend's statement are hearsay. (correct answer)
  4. The entry is inadmissible because the friend's opinion on handwriting is not proper lay witness testimony.
Explanation: This evidence contains multiple levels of hearsay. The first level is the diary entry itself. The second level is the friend's statement to the ex-girlfriend. The diary entry is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. It is not a recorded recollection under FRE 803(5) because the witness (ex-girlfriend) did not have personal knowledge of the underlying event (the friend's recognition). The friend's statement is also hearsay offered for its truth. While FRE 801(d)(1)(C) provides a non-hearsay definition for statements of identification, it applies to identifications made after perceiving the person. It generally does not apply to handwriting identification in this context. Since no exception applies to either the diary entry or the friend's statement, the evidence is inadmissible.

Question 3

A woman sued a bus company after being injured on a bus. At trial, she seeks to introduce a letter written by her sister, who has since died. The letter, sent the day after the incident, reads: "I'm so sorry about your injury. I remember you called me right from the bus, screaming 'My arm is broken! The driver slammed the doors on me!' It was terrifying to hear." The bus company objects to the introduction of the letter.

  1. The letter is inadmissible because it is hearsay not within any exception.
  2. The letter is admissible under the residual exception because it is trustworthy and the sister is unavailable.
  3. The letter is admissible because the woman's statement was an excited utterance and the letter is a recorded recollection.
  4. The letter is inadmissible because although the woman's statement was an excited utterance, the letter itself is hearsay not within an exception. (correct answer)
Explanation: The evidence contains two layers of hearsay. The inner layer is the woman's statement on the phone ('My arm is broken! The driver slammed the doors on me!'). This statement, made while under the stress of the event, qualifies as an excited utterance under FRE 803(2). The outer layer is the sister's letter, which is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the woman made the excited utterance. The letter itself is hearsay. It is not a recorded recollection because the sister is not testifying. It is not former testimony. No other exception applies to the letter itself. Therefore, even though the inner statement is subject to an exception, the outer hearsay statement makes the evidence inadmissible.

Question 4

A woman sued a bus company after being injured on a bus. At trial, she seeks to introduce a letter written by her sister, who has since died. The letter, sent the day after the incident, reads: "I'm so sorry about your injury. I remember you called me right from the bus, screaming 'My arm is broken! The driver slammed the doors on me!' It was terrifying to hear." The bus company objects to the introduction of the letter.

  1. The letter is inadmissible because it is hearsay not within any exception.
  2. The letter is admissible under the residual exception because it is trustworthy and the sister is unavailable.
  3. The letter is admissible because the woman's statement was an excited utterance and the letter is a recorded recollection.
  4. The letter is inadmissible because although the woman's statement was an excited utterance, the letter itself is hearsay not within an exception. (correct answer)
Explanation: The evidence contains two layers of hearsay. The inner layer is the woman's statement on the phone ('My arm is broken! The driver slammed the doors on me!'). This statement, made while under the stress of the event, qualifies as an excited utterance under FRE 803(2). The outer layer is the sister's letter, which is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the woman made the excited utterance. The letter itself is hearsay. It is not a recorded recollection because the sister is not testifying. It is not former testimony. No other exception applies to the letter itself. Therefore, even though the inner statement is subject to an exception, the outer hearsay statement makes the evidence inadmissible.

Question 5

In a conspiracy trial, an undercover officer testifies that he recorded a conversation with a co-conspirator. On the recording, the co-conspirator says: "Don't worry about the shipment. The boss called me this morning and said, 'The package is secure.'" The boss is the defendant on trial. The co-conspirator who made the statement is now a fugitive and unavailable. The defendant objects to the officer's testimony about the conversation.

  1. The testimony is inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay.
  2. The testimony is admissible because both the co-conspirator's and the boss's statements were made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. (correct answer)
  3. The testimony is inadmissible because the co-conspirator is unavailable for cross-examination, violating the Confrontation Clause.
  4. The testimony is admissible because the boss's statement is a statement by an opposing party, and the co-conspirator's statement is against his penal interest.
Explanation: This testimony contains two out-of-court statements. The inner statement is the boss's (defendant's) statement. The outer statement is the co-conspirator's statement to the officer. Under FRE 801(d)(2)(E), a statement is not hearsay if it is made by a party's co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Here, the defendant is 'the boss'. His statement, 'The package is secure,' made to a co-conspirator, was in furtherance of the conspiracy. The co-conspirator's act of relaying this information to another member (the undercover officer, whom he believed to be a member) to reassure him was also in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because both statements fall under the co-conspirator exclusion from hearsay, the entire statement is admissible.

Question 6

A worker sued his employer for an injury caused by faulty scaffolding. The employer's attorney seeks to introduce a memorandum from the company's safety files. The memorandum, written by a site foreman, states: "Per my conversation with the supplier, the supplier confirmed that the worker's crew had been instructed on the weight limits of the scaffolding. The supplier said he keeps logs of all such trainings." The site foreman is testifying and has authenticated the memorandum.

  1. The memorandum is admissible as a business record, including the supplier's statement.
  2. The memorandum is inadmissible because the supplier's statement is hearsay not within an exception. (correct answer)
  3. The memorandum is admissible because it is a statement by an opposing party.
  4. The memorandum is inadmissible because it is self-serving and was prepared for litigation.
Explanation: This is a classic hearsay-within-hearsay problem in the context of a business record. The memorandum itself, if made and kept in the ordinary course of business, may qualify as a business record under FRE 803(6). However, it contains a statement from an outsider, the supplier. The supplier has no business duty to the worker's company to make accurate reports for their records. The supplier's statement is therefore hearsay. No exception applies to the supplier's statement. It is offered for its truth (that the crew was trained). Therefore, the portion of the memorandum containing the supplier's statement is inadmissible.

Question 7

At a child custody hearing, the father's attorney calls the child's therapist to testify. The therapist states, "During our last session, the child, who is seven, told me that his mother said to him, 'Don't tell your father we are moving to another state.'" The mother's attorney objects on hearsay grounds.

  1. The testimony is inadmissible because it is hearsay within hearsay.
  2. The testimony is admissible because the mother's statement is a statement by an opposing party and the child's statement was for medical diagnosis. (correct answer)
  3. The testimony is inadmissible because it violates the physician-patient privilege.
  4. The testimony is admissible because the mother's statement is not offered for its truth but as a verbal act.
Explanation: This testimony involves two levels of out-of-court statements. The inner level is the mother's statement to the child. The outer level is the child's statement to the therapist. The mother is a party to the custody hearing, so her statement, 'Don't tell your father we are moving,' is being offered against her. It qualifies as a statement by an opposing party under FRE 801(d)(2)(A) and is therefore not hearsay. The child's statement to the therapist, relaying the mother's statement, was made in the course of therapy. Statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment are an exception to the hearsay rule under FRE 803(4), and this applies to statements made to a psychiatrist or therapist. Thus, with an exclusion for the inner statement and an exception for the outer one, the testimony is admissible.

Question 8

A patient sued a doctor for negligence, claiming the doctor failed to inform her of the risks of a surgical procedure. The doctor seeks to admit a note from the patient's file, written by a nurse, which states: "I was present when the doctor explained the risks of infection and nerve damage to the patient. I heard the patient's husband say to her, 'Well dear, it sounds like you understand the risks.'" The patient objects to the inclusion of the husband's statement.

  1. The husband's statement is admissible to show its effect on the patient.
  2. The husband's statement is inadmissible hearsay. (correct answer)
  3. The husband's statement is admissible as a present sense impression.
  4. The husband's statement is admissible as an adoptive admission by the patient.
Explanation: The nurse's note is a business record (FRE 803(6)). The issue is the hearsay within the record: the husband's statement. This statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the patient appeared to understand the risks. The husband has no business duty to report, so his statement is not part of the business record. It is not offered to show its effect on the patient, but rather as proof of her understanding. It is not an adoptive admission because the patient did not hear and adopt the statement; rather, the statement was directed at her. There is no indication of her response or silence in the face of an accusation. It does not qualify as a present sense impression or excited utterance. Therefore, the husband's statement is inadmissible hearsay.

Question 9

At trial for insurance fraud, the insurance company introduces the deposition testimony of its former investigator, who is now deceased. In the deposition, the investigator testified, "The defendant's neighbor told me that she saw the defendant removing valuable antiques from his house the day before the fire." The defendant's attorney was present at the deposition and cross-examined the investigator. The defendant objects to the admission of this portion of the deposition.

  1. Admissible, because the deposition is former testimony and the neighbor's statement is not offered for its truth.
  2. Admissible, because the entire deposition is admissible as former testimony of an unavailable witness.
  3. Inadmissible, because the Confrontation Clause requires the neighbor to be available for cross-examination.
  4. Inadmissible, because the neighbor's statement within the former testimony is hearsay not within an exception. (correct answer)
Explanation: This is hearsay within hearsay. The outer layer is the investigator's deposition testimony. Since the investigator is unavailable (deceased) and the defendant had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine him at the deposition, the deposition itself qualifies as former testimony under FRE 804(b)(1). However, the inner layer is the neighbor's out-of-court statement to the investigator. This statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the defendant was removing valuables). No hearsay exception applies to the neighbor's statement. It is not an excited utterance or present sense impression. Therefore, even though the deposition testimony is admissible, the hearsay contained within it is not.

Question 10

In a product liability action against a car manufacturer, the plaintiff introduces testimony from a former employee of the defendant. The employee testifies, "My supervisor wrote a memo to the vice president after our team investigated the accidents. The memo said, 'The test driver's report confirms that he told the engineers the brakes felt spongy during pre-production trials.'" The test driver is deceased. The manufacturer objects.

  1. The testimony is inadmissible because it is based on a memo the witness did not write.
  2. The testimony is admissible because the supervisor's memo and the test driver's report are all business records of the defendant.
  3. The testimony is admissible because the supervisor's memo and the test driver's statement are statements by an opposing party's employees concerning matters in the scope of their employment. (correct answer)
  4. The testimony is inadmissible because the test driver's statement is hearsay not within any exception.
Explanation: This testimony contains hearsay within hearsay. The outer layer is the supervisor's memo. The inner layer is the test driver's statement/report. Both statements are being offered against the employer, the defendant manufacturer. Under FRE 801(d)(2)(D), a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against an opposing party and was made by the party's employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed. The test driver's statement about the brakes was within the scope of his employment. The supervisor's memo about the investigation was also within the scope of his employment. Since both statements qualify as non-hearsay statements by an opposing party's employees, the entire statement is admissible.

Question 11

At a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a police report. The report contains a transcription of a 911 call from a neighbor. The neighbor stated on the call, "I'm watching from my window right now. The man in the blue coat is trying to break into the house next door." The man in the blue coat was later identified as the defendant. The neighbor died before trial. The 911 operator who took the call is testifying.

  1. The report is admissible as a public record, and the call is a present sense impression.
  2. The report and statement are inadmissible because of the Confrontation Clause.
  3. The report is inadmissible hearsay, but the operator could testify to the statement as a present sense impression. (correct answer)
  4. The report is inadmissible against criminal defendants, and the statement is also hearsay.
Explanation: This involves hearsay within hearsay. Under FRE 803(8)(A)(ii), law enforcement observations are inadmissible against defendants in criminal cases, so the police report is inadmissible. However, the 911 operator can testify directly about the neighbor's statement, which qualifies as a present sense impression under FRE 803(1) because the neighbor was describing events as they occurred. Emergency 911 calls are generally non-testimonial, avoiding Confrontation Clause issues.

Question 12

In a product liability action against a car manufacturer, the plaintiff introduces testimony from a former employee of the defendant. The employee testifies, "My supervisor wrote a memo to the vice president after our team investigated the accidents. The memo said, 'The test driver's report confirms that he told the engineers the brakes felt spongy during pre-production trials.'" The test driver is deceased. The manufacturer objects.

  1. The testimony is inadmissible because it is based on a memo the witness did not write.
  2. The testimony is admissible because the supervisor's memo and the test driver's report are all business records of the defendant.
  3. The testimony is admissible because the supervisor's memo and the test driver's statement are statements by an opposing party's employees concerning matters in the scope of their employment. (correct answer)
  4. The testimony is inadmissible because the test driver's statement is hearsay not within any exception.
Explanation: This testimony contains hearsay within hearsay. The outer layer is the supervisor's memo. The inner layer is the test driver's statement/report. Both statements are being offered against the employer, the defendant manufacturer. Under FRE 801(d)(2)(D), a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against an opposing party and was made by the party's employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed. The test driver's statement about the brakes was within the scope of his employment. The supervisor's memo about the investigation was also within the scope of his employment. Since both statements qualify as non-hearsay statements by an opposing party's employees, the entire statement is admissible.

Question 13

In a civil commitment hearing, a hospital seeks to prove a patient is a danger to others. The hospital offers the patient's medical chart, which contains a note by a psychiatrist. The note reads: "Patient's mother reported on the phone today that the patient told her last night, 'I'm going to hurt the first person I see when I get out of here.'" The patient's attorney objects.

  1. The note is admissible because the medical chart is a business record and the patient's statement is a statement by an opposing party.
  2. The note is admissible because the patient's statement shows intent, and the mother's statement is for the purpose of medical diagnosis. (correct answer)
  3. The note is inadmissible because the mother's statement to the psychiatrist is hearsay not within an exception.
  4. The note is inadmissible because the patient's statement is protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
Explanation: This involves three layers of statements within the medical chart. Layer 1: The medical chart (business record, FRE 803(6)). Layer 2: The mother's statement to the psychiatrist. Layer 3: The patient's statement to the mother. The chart is a business record. The patient's statement to his mother, 'I'm going to hurt...', is a statement of intent, admissible under the state-of-mind exception, FRE 803(3). It is also a statement by a party opponent (FRE 801(d)(2)(A)). The crucial step is the mother's statement to the psychiatrist. A statement made by a family member on behalf of a patient for the purpose of getting that patient medical diagnosis or treatment can fall under FRE 803(4). The mother's report of the threat is clearly for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment of the patient's dangerousness. Thus, an exception or exclusion applies at each level.

Question 14

In a probate dispute, one potential heir seeks to introduce the diary of the decedent. An entry dated a week before the decedent's death reads: "My nephew visited today. He told me that his mother, my sister, said she never intended for me to inherit the family home." The sister is also a potential heir and a party to the dispute. The sister objects to the diary entry.

  1. The entry is admissible because the decedent's diary is a statement of then-existing state of mind.
  2. The entry is admissible because the sister's statement is a statement by an opposing party, and the nephew's statement is not offered for its truth.
  3. The entry is inadmissible because it contains two levels of hearsay to which no exceptions apply. (correct answer)
  4. The entry is admissible because the sister's statement is a statement by an opposing party, and the nephew's statement is also attributable to the sister as her agent.
Explanation: This presents three levels of hearsay. Level 1: The diary entry. Level 2: The nephew's statement to the decedent. Level 3: The sister's statement to the nephew. The sister's statement is a statement by an opposing party (FRE 801(d)(2)(A)), so it is not hearsay. However, the nephew's statement to the decedent is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the sister made her statement. The nephew is not an agent authorized to speak for the sister. No exception applies to the nephew's statement. Furthermore, the diary entry itself is hearsay. While some statements in a diary may reflect a then-existing state of mind (FRE 803(3)), this entry is a recitation of past events and statements, not a reflection of the decedent's own state of mind. With no exceptions for the diary entry or the nephew's statement, the evidence is inadmissible.

Question 15

You are defending a client charged with bank robbery. The prosecution's key evidence is a note found at the scene. To connect the note to your client, the prosecution offers a page from a diary belonging to your client's ex-girlfriend. The entry reads: "My friend who works at the bank told me she recognized the handwriting on the robber's note. She said, 'I'm certain it was my old boyfriend's writing,' referring to the defendant." The ex-girlfriend will testify and authenticate the diary. The friend is unavailable.

  1. The entry is admissible as a recorded recollection.
  2. The entry is admissible because the friend's statement is a statement of identification.
  3. The entry is inadmissible because both the diary entry and the friend's statement are hearsay. (correct answer)
  4. The entry is inadmissible because the friend's opinion on handwriting is not proper lay witness testimony.
Explanation: This evidence contains multiple levels of hearsay. The first level is the diary entry itself. The second level is the friend's statement to the ex-girlfriend. The diary entry is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. It is not a recorded recollection under FRE 803(5) because the witness (ex-girlfriend) did not have personal knowledge of the underlying event (the friend's recognition). The friend's statement is also hearsay offered for its truth. While FRE 801(d)(1)(C) provides a non-hearsay definition for statements of identification, it applies to identifications made after perceiving the person. It generally does not apply to handwriting identification in this context. Since no exception applies to either the diary entry or the friend's statement, the evidence is inadmissible.

Question 16

In a medical malpractice suit, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a hospital record entry made by a nurse. The entry reads: "Patient was admitted complaining of severe abdominal pain. Patient's husband, who was in the room, stated that the patient told him yesterday, 'The doctor must have left a sponge in me during surgery.'" The patient is the plaintiff in the case. The defendant-doctor objects to the portion of the note containing the husband's statement.

  1. The statement is admissible as a statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment.
  2. The statement is admissible because the hospital record is a business record.
  3. The statement is inadmissible hearsay because the husband had no business duty to report to the nurse.
  4. The statement is inadmissible hearsay because it contains a statement from the patient that does not fall under an exception. (correct answer)
Explanation: This is double hearsay. The first level is the hospital record itself, which is a business record (FRE 803(6)). The second level is the husband's statement to the nurse. The third level is the patient's statement to the husband. For the entry to be admissible, each level of hearsay needs an exception. The hospital record is a business record. However, the husband's statement to the nurse is hearsay, as he has no business duty to report. Even if an exception applied to the husband's statement, the patient's statement to her husband ('The doctor must have left a sponge in me') was made the previous day and not for the purpose of medical diagnosis. It is a simple out-of-court assertion offered for its truth. No exception applies to the patient's statement to her husband, so the entire layered statement is inadmissible.

Question 17

You represent the defendant in a breach of contract action. The plaintiff, a corporation, seeks to introduce an internal email written by one of its own managers, who has since left the company. The email states: "We need to document this. I just got off the phone with our supplier's representative, and she admitted that they shipped the wrong grade of materials to the defendant." The supplier is not a party to the lawsuit.

  1. The email is admissible as a business record, and the representative's statement is a statement against interest.
  2. The email is admissible as a statement by an opposing party's employee.
  3. The email is inadmissible because the manager is no longer an employee of the plaintiff.
  4. The email is inadmissible because the supplier representative's statement is hearsay not covered by an exception. (correct answer)
Explanation: This is hearsay within hearsay. The email itself is the outer layer of hearsay. The statement from the supplier's representative is the inner layer. The plaintiff offers the email, which is its own statement, so it's not a statement of an opposing party. It might be a business record (FRE 803(6)) if it was made and kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity. Assuming it is, we must analyze the inner hearsay: the supplier representative's admission. This statement is offered for its truth. It is not a statement by an opposing party, as the supplier is not a party. It is not a statement against the representative's interest unless it would subject her to liability. Simply admitting a mistake on behalf of her company is unlikely to meet that standard. Since no exception applies to the inner statement, the entire entry is inadmissible.

Question 18

A patient sued a doctor for negligence, claiming the doctor failed to inform her of the risks of a surgical procedure. The doctor seeks to admit a note from the patient's file, written by a nurse, which states: "I was present when the doctor explained the risks of infection and nerve damage to the patient. I heard the patient's husband say to her, 'Well dear, it sounds like you understand the risks.'" The patient objects to the inclusion of the husband's statement.

  1. The husband's statement is admissible to show its effect on the patient.
  2. The husband's statement is inadmissible hearsay. (correct answer)
  3. The husband's statement is admissible as a present sense impression.
  4. The husband's statement is admissible as an adoptive admission by the patient.
Explanation: The nurse's note is a business record (FRE 803(6)). The issue is the hearsay within the record: the husband's statement. This statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the patient appeared to understand the risks. The husband has no business duty to report, so his statement is not part of the business record. It is not offered to show its effect on the patient, but rather as proof of her understanding. It is not an adoptive admission because the patient did not hear and adopt the statement; rather, the statement was directed at her. There is no indication of her response or silence in the face of an accusation. It does not qualify as a present sense impression or excited utterance. Therefore, the husband's statement is inadmissible hearsay.

Question 19

A worker sued his employer for an injury caused by faulty scaffolding. The employer's attorney seeks to introduce a memorandum from the company's safety files. The memorandum, written by a site foreman, states: "Per my conversation with the supplier, the supplier confirmed that the worker's crew had been instructed on the weight limits of the scaffolding. The supplier said he keeps logs of all such trainings." The site foreman is testifying and has authenticated the memorandum.

  1. The memorandum is admissible as a business record, including the supplier's statement.
  2. The memorandum is inadmissible because the supplier's statement is hearsay not within an exception. (correct answer)
  3. The memorandum is admissible because it is a statement by an opposing party.
  4. The memorandum is inadmissible because it is self-serving and was prepared for litigation.
Explanation: This is a classic hearsay-within-hearsay problem in the context of a business record. The memorandum itself, if made and kept in the ordinary course of business, may qualify as a business record under FRE 803(6). However, it contains a statement from an outsider, the supplier. The supplier has no business duty to the worker's company to make accurate reports for their records. The supplier's statement is therefore hearsay. No exception applies to the supplier's statement. It is offered for its truth (that the crew was trained). Therefore, the portion of the memorandum containing the supplier's statement is inadmissible.

Question 20

A man is on trial for the murder of his business partner. The prosecution calls the victim's spouse to the stand. The spouse testifies, "A week before he died, my husband came home very agitated and told me, 'I just found out my partner has been embezzling. Our accountant showed me records proving it.'" The defense objects to the testimony about what the accountant allegedly showed the victim.

  1. The entire statement is admissible to show the victim's state of mind regarding the defendant.
  2. The entire statement is inadmissible hearsay.
  3. The statement about the partner embezzling is admissible as an excited utterance, but the part about the accountant is not.
  4. The statement is admissible only to show that the victim was agitated, but the content of what the accountant showed him is inadmissible hearsay. (correct answer)
Explanation: This statement contains multiple layers. The victim's statement to his spouse is the first layer of hearsay. The implicit statement by the accountant (via the records) is the second layer. The victim's statement, 'I just found out my partner has been embezzling,' might be offered to show his state of mind (fear, anger) towards the defendant, which could be relevant to motive. However, the part of the statement that functions as a narrative of a past event—'Our accountant showed me records proving it'—is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted: that there were records proving embezzlement. This is hearsay. The accountant's implicit assertion through the records is also hearsay. No exception applies to this part of the statement. Therefore, while the part of the statement showing the victim's agitation might be admissible under FRE 803(3), the factual basis for it is inadmissible hearsay.