Which of the following is NOT an element of hearsay?
The statement is made out of court
The statement is offered for the truth of its statements
The statement is made by a witness who can be called to testify.
Where does the hearsay rule fit into the admissibility model?
Is the evidence relevant?
Is the evidence excluded by some other rule or policy?
Is it excluded because prejudicial effect outweighs probative value?
A person is charged with trafficking drugs and argues duress. She claims that someone told her "if you don't take these drugs across the border, I'll kill your family." Is this statement hearsay?
What proposition does Creaghe v Iowa Home stand for?
Where the truth of a statement does not matter, it is not hearsay.
Words that have independent legal significance are not hearsay.
Where a statement is adduced to support a statement for which there is already proof, it is not hearsay.
If an out of court statement only implicitly asserts a fact, it is hearsay.
What is the main rational for the rule against hearsay?
Where a witness can't be cross examined, the materiality of the evidence is difficult to determine.
Hearsay evidence is rarely probative.
The adversarial system puts a premium on calling witnesses who can testify under oath and be cross-examined.
The Spontaneous Utterance exception must...
Occur simultaneously with the event.
Occur in circumstances that exclude possibility of concoction by the declarant.
Occur in circumstances that exclude the possibility of distortion by the declarant.
All of the above.
(A) and (B)
In the context of res gestae there is no possibility of concoction or distortion when...
The mind of the declarant is so occupied with the events that they can't think about anything else.
The declarant can corroborate their statement.
A statement made by a declarant that inculpates her in a crime is...
Inadmissible because it is hearsay
Hearsay, but admissible under statements against interest.
Hearsay, but admissible if the declarant made it in circumstances where she should have recognized possible penal consequences.
Verdicts from prior criminal proceedings are presumptively admissible in subsequent civil proceedings.
In R v Potvin, the SCC found that...
Preliminary testimony is rarely admissible in subsequent proceedings.
Cross examination must occur for preliminary testimony to be admissible.
The opportunity to cross examine the witness is what matters for admitting preliminary testimony.
In Youlden v London the court found that...
Statements may be admitted for the purpose of showing the physical condition of the declarant.
Statements may be admitted for the purpose of showing the mental condition of the declarant.
Statements can be admitted for the purpose of showing what the declarant was thinking at the time.
What is the difference between a statement about mental condition and a statement of intention?
Statements about intention have to do with the acuts reus, while statements of mental condition have to do with mens rea.
Statement of intention is only relevant if it was acted upon, whereas statement about mental condition is relevant in and of itself.
Statements of intention are not admissible for inferences drawn from that intention, whereas statements of mental condition are admissible for inferences drawn from that condition.
R v Monkhouse created what hearsay exception?
Statements by Parties
Business Records
Admissions by Parties
Dying declarations are admissible for what purpose?
Inferring the state of mind of the person the statement was made to.
Showing the declarant's state of mind at the time of his/her death.
Explaining the cause of the declarant's death.
