Skip to content
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT US
Search
Close
anthony ostlund logo
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
Menu
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS

Hearsay by Definition: The First Step of the Hearsay Analysis

  • May 26, 2022

Minnesota Lawyer and Finance & Commerce – Partner Content

Author: Phil Kaplan

 

Everyone reading this article probably already knows hearsay is an out-of-court statement used “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”  But even experienced litigators can fail to appreciate the full magnitude of those defining words.  When searching for a basis to admit an out-of-court statement into evidence, lawyers sometimes skip right to the hearsay exceptions in Rules of Evidence 801(d), 803, 804, and 807, without stopping to consider if the statement even constitutes “hearsay” in the first place.  They miss the treasure trove at step 1 of the hearsay analysis.

 

The following are common examples of out-of-court statements and expressions that you can get into evidence by simply using the definition of “hearsay” under Rule 801(c):

Directions: A direction, instruction or command is not hearsay because it is not an assertion of fact that can be proven true.  State v. Quast, 2014 WL 2807580, *7 (Minn. Ct. App. June 23, 2014).  Asking a witness “What did Mrs. Smith tell you to do?” does not call for inadmissible hearsay.

 

Questions: Likewise, a question is not hearsay.  Id.  A question, by its nature, is not a factual assertion.  A question seeks the truth; it does not speak the truth.  Caveat: I am referring to questions that are purely inquisitive.  I am not referring to questions that include or assume facts (e.g., “When did you stop making payments?”).  The latter type of question could, in some circumstances, fit the definition of hearsay.

 

Non-Assertive Expressions: There are many other ways people can express them themselves verbally, without asserting any facts that would put their expressions within the purview of the hearsay rules.  For example, “Yikes!” and “LOL!” are not factual statements and should not be considered hearsay in a typical case.

 

False Statements: When you are trying to prove a witness lied, you necessarily elicit evidence of their prior factual statements.  But you are not using that evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  You are using it to prove the falsity of the assertion, which is not prohibited by the hearsay rules.  State v. Hanley, 363 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Minn. 1985).

 

Contracts: A contract is not hearsay.  Rather, a contract is a form of “verbal act” that determines the parties’ legal rights and duties.  Evidence of a contract is relevant to prove the terms of the contract exist, not to prove those terms are “true.”  Mueller v. Abdnor, 972 F.2d 931, 937 (8th Cir. 1992).

Statements Used to Prove the Mere Fact They Were Made: You can use evidence of a statement to prove the mere fact that the statement was made.  Fed. R. Evid. 801 – Advisory Committee Note to Subdivision (c).  A declarant’s statement can show they provided or received notice, they were present for an important event, or they witnessed a key fact.  Imagine Joe Schmo testifies that he never saw a critical email in the case.  But one of your witness’s heard Joe say he thought the email was “funny.”  Regardless of whether the email was actually “funny,” the mere fact that Joe commented on it proves he must have read the email.  That fact is not hearsay.

 

Statements Used to Provide Context: One out-of-court statement can be used to provide context for another out-of-court statement that is otherwise admissible.  United States v. Abrahamson, 568 F.2d 604, 606 (8th Cir. 1978); State v. Tovar, 605 N.W.2d 717, 726 (Minn. 2000).  This issue may arise when you have evidence of a conversation between your client and the other party (e.g., a chain of text messages or emails).  What the other party told your client is admissible as a statement of a party opponent under Rule 801(d).  Your client’s statements do not fall under the same exception, but you may still offer your client’s statements if they help clarify the other party’s response.

 

Statements Used to Explain Behavior: An out-of-court statement can also be used to explain someone’s behavior.  For example, evidence of a threatening statement can be used to rationalize the listener’s response, without proving the threat was true.  Butler v. Leadens Investigations and Sec., Inc., 503 N.W.2d 805, 809 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).

 

When you prepare for your next trial, and you’re looking for a reason to get some out-of-court statement into evidence, start with the definition of “hearsay.”  It might be all you need.

 

View the PDF

related attorneys

Loading...

Philip J. Kaplan

related practice areas

Loading...
AO-logo-initials

90 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 3600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
P 612.349.6969       F 612.349.6996

 

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  • 651•312•6500
  • 651•312•6618
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
search
disclaimer
Linkedin
Join Our Email List

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT