Man I love this thread...keeping all the rules of evidence planted firmly in my brain. Yes UKlaw; although the Federal Rules state that a party admission is
exempt, meaning it's just treated as non-hearsay, and many state rules treat a party admission as an exception to the hearsay rule - there is basically no difference...party admissions are coming in. I am not a lawyer and I apologize for answering - I'm a 3L and did just pass my evidence final with a pretty darn good grade
I appreciate the opportunity any opportunity reiterate any evidence issues because I found it one of the hardest classes ever, but most necessary for the job!
SoCalSleuth: indeed a second year law student would recognize that trying to introduce KC's statements about Lee molesting her through Jesse is obvious inadmissible hearsay.
I caught the end of the trial session today and heard the defense offer up something like a state of mind exception? Then the state countered by schooling them that past events recalled and told to Jesse by KC does not qualify as a then existing state of mind, it is statement of remembered facts and inadmissible hearsay... (I was coming out of a nap so it could have been a lucid dream)
So my question to the attorneys here is: aren't the state's attorneys correct in that the state of mind exception does not apply because it was simply a narration of past events? If so, I though I heard HJP tell both parties to find the applicable case law on that issue and I'm wondering why he would have them go to that extent and not just rule that it is inadmissible.