Sassafrass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2018
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 4,509
No. Hearsay doesn't mean drawing inferences. The hearsay rule is basically a "best evidence" rule - it says (in part) that if someone is able to testify as to what they saw/heard/etc., they need to do that, and to be subject to cross on their testimony. There are exceptions (link is to Federal Rules if Evidence 803, so not necessarily what Idaho follows, but they're usually pretty consistent) such as witness unavailable, business records in the ordinary course, contemporaneous records, excited utterances, etc., where the evidence can be admitted even though there is no person testifying.Dylan saw what she saw, and gave a statement to the police. That is not hearsay. It is herasay that she saw BK. But Dylan's statement does not say that she identified BK. MOO
LaBar's point was that she'll need to testify (and be cross-examined) for her testimony to be given weight for its truth. IOW, a police officer can't testify as to what she said and have it be considered for the truth of what s/he says she said.