8ule 412 Sex Cffense Cases 8elevance of Alleged vlcLlms asL Sexual 8ehavlor or Alleged

Sexual redlsposlLlon

(a) Lvldence generally lnadmlsslble
1he followlng evldence ls noL admlsslble ln any clvll or crlmlnal proceedlng lnvolvlng alleged
sexual mlsconducL excepL as provlded ln subdlvlslons (b) and (c)
(1) Lvldence offered Lo prove LhaL any alleged vlcLlm engaged ln oLher sexual behavlor
(2) Lvldence offered Lo prove any alleged vlcLlms sexual predlsposlLlon
(b) LxcepLlons
(1) ln a crlmlnal case Lhe followlng evldence ls admlsslble lf oLherwlse admlsslble under
Lhese rules
(A) evldence of speclflc lnsLances of sexual behavlor by Lhe alleged vlcLlm offered
Lo prove LhaL a person oLher Lhan Lhe accused was Lhe source of semen ln[ury or oLher
physlcal evldence
(8) evldence of speclflc lnsLances of sexual behavlor by Lhe alleged vlcLlm wlLh
respecL Lo Lhe person accused of Lhe sexual mlsconducL offered by Lhe accused Lo prove
consenL or by Lhe prosecuLlon and
(C) evldence Lhe excluslon of whlch would vlolaLe Lhe consLlLuLlonal rlghLs of Lhe
defendanL
(2) ln a clvll case evldence offered Lo prove Lhe sexual behavlor or sexual predlsposlLlon
of any alleged vlcLlm ls admlsslble lf lL ls oLherwlse admlsslble under Lhese rules and lLs
probaLlve value subsLanLlally ouLwelghs Lhe danger of harm Lo any vlcLlm and of unfalr
pre[udlce Lo any parLy Lvldence of an alleged vlcLlms repuLaLlon ls admlsslble only lf lL has
been placed ln conLroversy by Lhe alleged vlcLlm
(c) rocedure Lo deLermlne admlsslblllLy
(1) A parLy lnLendlng Lo offer evldence under subdlvlslon (b) musL
(A) flle a wrlLLen moLlon aL leasL 14 days before Lrlal speclflcally descrlblng Lhe
evldence and sLaLlng Lhe purpose for whlch lL ls offered unless Lhe courL for good cause
requlres a dlfferenL Llme for flllng or permlLs flllng durlng Lrlal and
(8) serve Lhe moLlon on all parLles and noLlfy Lhe alleged vlcLlm or when
approprlaLe Lhe alleged vlcLlms guardlan or represenLaLlve
(2) 8efore admlLLlng evldence under Lhls rule Lhe courL musL conducL a hearlng ln camera and
afford Lhe vlcLlm and parLles a rlghL Lo aLLend and be heard 1he moLlon relaLed papers and
Lhe record of Lhe hearlng musL be sealed and remaln under seal unless Lhe courL orders
oLherwlse

ku|e 413 Lv|dence of S|m||ar Cr|mes |n Sexua| Assau|t Cases
(a) ln a crlmlnal case ln whlch Lhe defendanL ls accused of an offense of sexual assaulL evldence
of Lhe defendanLs commlsslon of anoLher offense or offenses of sexual assaulL ls admlsslble
and may be consldered for lLs bearlng on any maLLer Lo whlch lL ls relevanL
(b) ln a case ln whlch Lhe CovernmenL lnLends Lo offer evldence under Lhls rule Lhe aLLorney
for Lhe CovernmenL shall dlsclose Lhe evldence Lo Lhe defendanL lncludlng sLaLemenLs of
wlLnesses or a summary of Lhe subsLance of any LesLlmony LhaL ls expecLed Lo be offered aL
leasL flfLeen days before Lhe scheduled daLe of Lrlal or aL such laLer Llme as Lhe courL may allow
for good cause
(c) 1hls rule shall noL be consLrued Lo llmlL Lhe admlsslon or conslderaLlon of evldence under
any oLher rule
(d) lor purposes of Lhls rule and 8ule 413 offense of sexual assaulL means a crlme under
lederal law or Lhe law of a SLaLe (as deflned ln secLlon 313 of LlLle 18 unlLed SLaLes Code) LhaL
lnvolved
(1) any conducL proscrlbed by chapLer 109A of LlLle 18 unlLed SLaLes Code
(2) conLacL wlLhouL consenL beLween any parL of Lhe defendanLs body or an ob[ecL and Lhe
genlLals or anus of anoLher person
(3) conLacL wlLhouL consenL beLween Lhe genlLals or anus of Lhe defendanL and any parL of
anoLher persons body
(4) derlvlng sexual pleasure or graLlflcaLlon from Lhe lnfllcLlon of deaLh bodlly ln[ury or physlcal
paln on anoLher person or
(3) an aLLempL or consplracy Lo engage ln conducL descrlbed ln paragraphs (1)(4)

ku|e 414 Lv|dence of S|m||ar Cr|mes |n Ch||d Mo|estat|on Cases
(a) ln a crlmlnal case ln whlch Lhe defendanL ls accused of an offense of chlld molesLaLlon
evldence of Lhe defendanLs commlsslon of anoLher offense or offenses of chlld molesLaLlon ls
admlsslble and may be consldered for lLs bearlng on any maLLer Lo whlch lL ls relevanL

(b) ln a case ln whlch Lhe CovernmenL lnLends Lo offer evldence under Lhls rule Lhe aLLorney
for Lhe CovernmenL shall dlsclose Lhe evldence Lo Lhe defendanL lncludlng sLaLemenLs of
wlLnesses or a summary of Lhe subsLance of any LesLlmony LhaL ls expecLed Lo be offered aL
leasL flfLeen days before Lhe scheduled daLe of Lrlal or aL such laLer Llme as Lhe courL may allow
for good cause

(c) 1hls rule shall noL be consLrued Lo llmlL Lhe admlsslon or conslderaLlon of evldence under
any oLher rule

(d) lor purposes of Lhls rule and 8ule 413 chlld means a person below Lhe age of fourLeen
and offense of chlld molesLaLlon means a crlme under lederal law or Lhe law of a SLaLe (as
deflned ln secLlon 313 of LlLle 18 unlLed SLaLes Code) LhaL lnvolved

(1) any conducL proscrlbed by chapLer 109A of LlLle 18 unlLed SLaLes Code LhaL was commlLLed
ln relaLlon Lo a chlld

(2) any conducL proscrlbed by chapLer 110 of LlLle 18 unlLed SLaLes Code

(3) conLacL beLween any parL of Lhe defendanLs body or an ob[ecL and Lhe genlLals or anus of a
chlld

(4) conLacL beLween Lhe genlLals or anus of Lhe defendanL and any parL of Lhe body of a chlld

(3) derlvlng sexual pleasure or graLlflcaLlon from Lhe lnfllcLlon of deaLh bodlly ln[ury or physlcal
paln on a chlld or

(6) an aLLempL or consplracy Lo engage ln conducL descrlbed ln paragraphs (1)(3)
ku|e 41S Lv|dence of S|m||ar Acts |n C|v|| Cases Concern|ng Sexua| Assau|t or Ch||d
Mo|estat|on

(a) ln a clvll case ln whlch a clalm for damages or oLher rellef ls predlcaLed on a parLys alleged
commlsslon of conducL consLlLuLlng an offense of sexual assaulL or chlld molesLaLlon evldence
of LhaL parLys commlsslon of anoLher offense or offenses of sexual assaulL or chlld molesLaLlon
ls admlsslble and may be consldered as provlded ln 8ule 413 and 8ule 414 of Lhese rules

(b) A parLy who lnLends Lo offer evldence under Lhls 8ule shall dlsclose Lhe evldence Lo Lhe
parLy agalnsL whom lL wlll be offered lncludlng sLaLemenLs of wlLnesses or a summary of Lhe
subsLance of any LesLlmony LhaL ls expecLed Lo be offered aL leasL flfLeen days before Lhe
scheduled daLe of Lrlal or aL such laLer Llme as Lhe courL may allow for good cause

(c) 1hls rule shall noL be consLrued Lo llmlL Lhe admlsslon or conslderaLlon of evldence under
any oLher rule
ku|e S01 Genera| ku|e
LxcepL as oLherwlse requlred by Lhe ConsLlLuLlon of Lhe unlLed SLaLes or provlded by AcL of
Congress or ln rules prescrlbed by Lhe Supreme CourL pursuanL Lo sLaLuLory auLhorlLy Lhe
prlvllege of a wlLness person governmenL SLaLe or pollLlcal subdlvlslon Lhereof shall be
governed by Lhe prlnclples of Lhe common law as Lhey may be lnLerpreLed by Lhe courLs of Lhe
unlLed SLaLes ln Lhe llghL of reason and experlence Powever ln clvll acLlons and proceedlngs
wlLh respecL Lo an elemenL of a clalm or defense as Lo whlch SLaLe law supplles Lhe rule of
declslon Lhe prlvllege of a wlLness person governmenL SLaLe or pollLlcal subdlvlslon Lhereof
shall be deLermlned ln accordance wlLh SLaLe law
ku|e S02 AttorneyC||ent r|v||ege and Work roduct L|m|tat|ons on Wa|ver
1he followlng provlslons apply ln Lhe clrcumsLances seL ouL Lo dlsclosure of a communlcaLlon
or lnformaLlon covered by Lhe aLLorneycllenL prlvllege or workproducL proLecLlon
(a) Scope of walver
When Lhe dlsclosure ls made ln a lederal proceedlng or Lo a lederal offlce or agency and
walves Lhe aLLorneycllenL prlvllege or workproducL proLecLlon Lhe walver exLends Lo an
undlsclosed communlcaLlon or lnformaLlon ln a lederal or SLaLe proceedlng only lf
(1) Lhe walver ls lnLenLlonal
(2) Lhe dlsclosed and undlsclosed communlcaLlons or lnformaLlon concern Lhe same sub[ecL
maLLer and
(3) Lhey oughL ln falrness Lo be consldered LogeLher
(b) lnadverLenL dlsclosure
When made ln a lederal proceedlng or Lo a lederal offlce or agency Lhe dlsclosure does noL
operaLe as a walver ln a lederal or SLaLe proceedlng lf
(1) Lhe dlsclosure ls lnadverLenL
(2) Lhe holder of Lhe prlvllege or proLecLlon Look reasonable sLeps Lo prevenL dlsclosure and
(3) Lhe holder prompLly Look reasonable sLeps Lo recLlfy Lhe error lncludlng (lf appllcable)
followlng lederal 8ule of Clvll rocedure 26(b)(3)(8)
ulsclosure Made ln a SLaLe roceedlng
When Lhe dlsclosure ls made ln a SLaLe proceedlng and ls noL Lhe sub[ecL of a SLaLecourL order
concernlng walver Lhe dlsclosure does noL operaLe as a walver ln a lederal proceedlng lf Lhe
dlsclosure
(1) would noL be a walver under Lhls rule lf lL had been made ln a lederal proceedlng or
(2) ls noL a walver under Lhe law of Lhe SLaLe where Lhe dlsclosure occurred
(d) ConLrolllng LffecL of a CourL Crder
A lederal courL may order LhaL Lhe prlvllege or proLecLlon ls noL walved by dlsclosure
connecLed wlLh Lhe llLlgaLlon pendlng before Lhe courLln whlch evenL Lhe dlsclosure ls also
noL a walver ln any oLher lederal or SLaLe proceedlng
(e) ConLrolllng effecL of a parLy agreemenL
An agreemenL on Lhe effecL of dlsclosure ln a lederal proceedlng ls blndlng only on Lhe parLles
Lo Lhe agreemenL unless lL ls lncorporaLed lnLo a courL order
(f) ConLrolllng LffecL of 1hls 8ule
noLwlLhsLandlng 8ules 101 and 1101 Lhls rule applles Lo SLaLe proceedlngs and Lo lederal
courLannexed and lederal courLmandaLed arblLraLlon proceedlngs ln Lhe clrcumsLances seL
ouL ln Lhe rule And noLwlLhsLandlng 8ule 301 Lhls rule applles even lf SLaLe law provldes Lhe
rule of declslon
(g) ueflnlLlons
ln Lhls rule
(1) aLLorneycllenL prlvllege means Lhe proLecLlon LhaL appllcable law provldes for
confldenLlal aLLorneycllenL communlcaLlons and
(2) workproducL proLecLlon means Lhe proLecLlon LhaL appllcable law provldes for Langlble
maLerlal (or lLs lnLanglble equlvalenL) prepared ln anLlclpaLlon of llLlgaLlon or for Lrlal

ku|e 608 Lv|dence of Character and Conduct of W|tness
(a) Cplnlon and repuLaLlon evldence of characLer
1he credlblllLy of a wlLness may be aLLacked or supporLed by evldence ln Lhe form of oplnlon or
repuLaLlon buL sub[ecL Lo Lhese llmlLaLlons (1) Lhe evldence may refer only Lo characLer for
LruLhfulness or unLruLhfulness and (2) evldence of LruLhful characLer ls admlsslble only afLer
Lhe characLer of Lhe wlLness for LruLhfulness has been aLLacked by oplnlon or repuLaLlon
evldence or oLherwlse
(b) Speclflc lnsLances of conducL
Speclflc lnsLances of Lhe conducL of a wlLness for Lhe purpose of aLLacklng or supporLlng Lhe
wlLness characLer for LruLhfulness oLher Lhan convlcLlon of crlme as provlded ln rule 609 may
noL be proved by exLrlnslc evldence 1hey may however ln Lhe dlscreLlon of Lhe courL lf
probaLlve of LruLhfulness or unLruLhfulness be lnqulred lnLo on crossexamlnaLlon of Lhe
wlLness (1) concernlng Lhe wlLness characLer for LruLhfulness or unLruLhfulness or (2)
concernlng Lhe characLer for LruLhfulness or unLruLhfulness of anoLher wlLness as Lo whlch
characLer Lhe wlLness belng crossexamlned has LesLlfled
1he glvlng of LesLlmony wheLher by an accused or by any oLher wlLness does noL operaLe as a
walver of Lhe accuseds or Lhe wlLness prlvllege agalnsL selflncrlmlnaLlon when examlned wlLh
respecL Lo maLLers LhaL relaLe only Lo characLer for LruLhfulness
noLes of Advlsory CommlLLee on 8ules
Subdlvlslon (a)
ln 8ule 404(a) Lhe general poslLlon ls Laken LhaL characLer evldence ls noL admlsslble for Lhe
purpose of provlng LhaL Lhe person acLed ln conformlLy LherewlLh sub[ecL however Lo several
excepLlons one of whlch ls characLer evldence of a wlLness as bearlng upon hls credlblllLy 1he
presenL rule develops LhaL excepLlon
ln accordance wlLh Lhe bulk of [udlclal auLhorlLy Lhe lnqulry ls sLrlcLly llmlLed Lo characLer for
veraclLy raLher Lhan allowlng evldence as Lo characLer generally 1he resulL ls Lo sharpen
relevancy Lo reduce surprlse wasLe of Llme and confuslon and Lo make Lhe loL of Lhe wlLness
somewhaL less unaLLracLlve McCormlck 44
1he use of oplnlon and repuLaLlon evldence as means of provlng Lhe characLer of wlLnesses ls
conslsLenL wlLh 8ule 403(a) Whlle Lhe modern pracLlce has purporLed Lo exclude oplnlon
wlLnesses who LesLlfy Lo repuLaLlon seem ln facL ofLen Lo be glvlng Lhelr oplnlons dlsgulsed
somewhaL mlsleadlngly as repuLaLlon See McCormlck 44 And even under Lhe modern
pracLlce a common relaxaLlon has allowed lnqulry as Lo wheLher Lhe wlLnesses would belleve
Lhe prlnclpal wlLness under oaLh unlLed SLaLes v Walker 313 l2d 236 (6Lh Clr 1963) and
cases clLed Lhereln McCormlck 44 pp 9493 n 3
CharacLer evldence ln supporL of credlblllLy ls admlsslble under Lhe rule only afLer Lhe wlLness
characLer has flrsL been aLLacked as has been Lhe case aL common law Magulre WelnsLeln eL
al Cases on Lvldence 293 (3Lh ed 1963) McCormlck 49 p 103 4 Wlgmore 1104 1he
enormous needless consumpLlon of Llme whlch a conLrary pracLlce would enLall [usLlfles Lhe
llmlLaLlon Cplnlon or repuLaLlon LhaL Lhe wlLness ls unLruLhful speclflcally quallfles as an aLLack
under Lhe rule and evldence or mlsconducL lncludlng convlcLlon of crlme and of corrupLlon
also fall wlLhln Lhls caLegory Lvldence of blas or lnLeresL does noL McCormlck 49 4 Wlgmore
1106 1107 WheLher evldence ln Lhe form of conLradlcLlon ls an aLLack upon Lhe characLer
of Lhe wlLness musL depend 1108 1109
As Lo Lhe use of speclflc lnsLances on dlrecL by an oplnlon wlLness see Lhe Advlsory
CommlLLees noLe Lo 8ule 403 supra
Subdlvlslon (b)

ln conformlLy wlLh 8ule 403 whlch forecloses use of evldence of speclflc lncldenLs as proof ln
chlef of characLer unless characLer ls an lssue ln Lhe case Lhe presenL rule generally bars
evldence of speclflc lnsLances of conducL of a wlLness for Lhe purpose of aLLacklng or supporLlng
hls credlblllLy 1here are however Lwo excepLlons (1) speclflc lnsLances are provable when
Lhey have been Lhe sub[ecL of crlmlnal convlcLlon and (2) speclflc lnsLances may be lnqulred
lnLo on crossexamlnaLlon of Lhe prlnclpal wlLness or of a wlLness glvlng an oplnlon of hls
characLer for LruLhfulness
(1) ConvlcLlon of crlme as a Lechnlque of lmpeachmenL ls LreaLed ln deLall ln 8ule 609 and here
ls merely recognlzed as an excepLlon Lo Lhe general rule excludlng evldence of speclflc
lncldenLs for lmpeachmenL purposes
(2) arLlcular lnsLances of conducL Lhough noL Lhe sub[ecL of crlmlnal convlcLlon may be
lnqulred lnLo on crossexamlnaLlon of Lhe prlnclpal wlLness hlmself or of a wlLness who LesLlfles
concernlng hls characLer for LruLhfulness LffecLlve crossexamlnaLlon demands LhaL some
allowance be made for golng lnLo maLLers of Lhls klnd buL Lhe posslblllLles of abuse are
subsLanLlal ConsequenLly safeguards are erecLed ln Lhe form of speclflc requlremenLs LhaL Lhe
lnsLances lnqulred lnLo be probaLlve of LruLhfulness or lLs opposlLe and noL remoLe ln Llme
Also Lhe overrldlng proLecLlon of 8ule 403 requlres LhaL probaLlve value noL be ouLwelghed by
danger of unfalr pre[udlce confuslon of lssues or mlsleadlng Lhe [ury and LhaL of 8ule 611 bars
harassmenL and undue embarrassmenL
1he flnal senLence consLlLuLes a re[ecLlon of Lhe docLrlne of such cases as eople v Sorge 301
n? 198 93 nL2d 637 (1930) LhaL any pasL crlmlnal acL relevanL Lo credlblllLy may be lnqulred
lnLo on crossexamlnaLlon ln apparenL dlsregard of Lhe prlvllege agalnsL selflncrlmlnaLlon
Whlle lL ls clear LhaL an ordlnary wlLness cannoL make a parLlal dlsclosure of lncrlmlnaLlng
maLLer and Lhen lnvoke Lhe prlvllege on crossexamlnaLlon no Lenable conLenLlon can be made
LhaL merely by LesLlfylng he walves hls rlghL Lo foreclose lnqulry on crossexamlnaLlon lnLo
crlmlnal acLlvlLles for Lhe purpose of aLLacklng hls credlblllLy So Lo hold would reduce Lhe
prlvllege Lo a nulllLy Whlle lL ls Lrue LhaL an accused unllke an ordlnary wlLness has an opLlon
wheLher Lo LesLlfy lf Lhe opLlon can be exerclsed only aL Lhe prlce of openlng up lnqulry as Lo
any and all crlmlnal acLs commlLLed durlng hls llfeLlme Lhe rlghL Lo LesLlfy could scarcely be sald
Lo possess much vlLallLy ln Crlffln v Callfornla 380 uS 609 83 SCL 1229 14 LLd2d 106
(1963) Lhe CourL held LhaL allowlng commenL on Lhe elecLlon of an accused noL Lo LesLlfy
exacLed a consLlLuLlonally lmpermlsslble prlce and so here Whlle no speclflc provlslon ln Lerms
confers consLlLuLlonal sLaLus on Lhe rlghL of an accused Lo Lake Lhe sLand ln hls own defense
Lhe exlsLence of Lhe rlghL ls so compleLely recognlzed LhaL a denlal of lL or subsLanLlal
lnfrlngemenL upon lL would surely be of due process dlmenslons See lerguson v Ceorgla 363
uS 370 81 SCL 736 3 LLd2d 783 (1961) McCormlck 131 8 Wlgmore 2276 (McnaughLon
8ev 1961) ln any evenL wholly aslde from consLlLuLlonal conslderaLlons Lhe provlslon
represenLs a sound pollcy
ku|e 609 Impeachment by Lv|dence of Conv|ct|on of Cr|me
(a) Ceneral rule
lor Lhe purpose of aLLacklng Lhe characLer for LruLhfulness of a wlLness
(1) evldence LhaL a wlLness oLher Lhan an accused has been convlcLed of a crlme shall be
admlLLed sub[ecL Lo 8ule 403 lf Lhe crlme was punlshable by deaLh or lmprlsonmenL ln excess
of one year under Lhe law under whlch Lhe wlLness was convlcLed and evldence LhaL an
accused has been convlcLed of such a crlme shall be admlLLed lf Lhe courL deLermlnes LhaL Lhe
probaLlve value of admlLLlng Lhls evldence ouLwelghs lLs pre[udlclal effecL Lo Lhe accused and
(2) evldence LhaL any wlLness has been convlcLed of a crlme shall be admlLLed regardless of Lhe
punlshmenL lf lL readlly can be deLermlned LhaL esLabllshlng Lhe elemenLs of Lhe crlme
requlred proof or admlsslon of an acL of dlshonesLy or false sLaLemenL by Lhe wlLness
(b) 1lme llmlL
Lvldence of a convlcLlon under Lhls rule ls noL admlsslble lf a perlod of more Lhan Len years has
elapsed slnce Lhe daLe of Lhe convlcLlon or of Lhe release of Lhe wlLness from Lhe conflnemenL
lmposed for LhaL convlcLlon whlchever ls Lhe laLer daLe unless Lhe courL deLermlnes ln Lhe
lnLeresLs of [usLlce LhaL Lhe probaLlve value of Lhe convlcLlon supporLed by speclflc facLs and
clrcumsLances subsLanLlally ouLwelghs lLs pre[udlclal effecL Powever evldence of a convlcLlon
more Lhan 10 years old as calculaLed hereln ls noL admlsslble unless Lhe proponenL glves Lo Lhe
adverse parLy sufflclenL advance wrlLLen noLlce of lnLenL Lo use such evldence Lo provlde Lhe
adverse parLy wlLh a falr opporLunlLy Lo conLesL Lhe use of such evldence
(c) LffecL of pardon annulmenL or cerLlflcaLe of rehablllLaLlon
Lvldence of a convlcLlon ls noL admlsslble under Lhls rule lf (1) Lhe convlcLlon has been Lhe
sub[ecL of a pardon annulmenL cerLlflcaLe of rehablllLaLlon or oLher equlvalenL procedure
based on a flndlng of Lhe rehablllLaLlon of Lhe person convlcLed and LhaL person has noL been
convlcLed of a subsequenL crlme LhaL was punlshable by deaLh or lmprlsonmenL ln excess of
one year or (2) Lhe convlcLlon has been Lhe sub[ecL of a pardon annulmenL or oLher
equlvalenL procedure based on a flndlng of lnnocence
(d) !uvenlle ad[udlcaLlons
Lvldence of [uvenlle ad[udlcaLlons ls generally noL admlsslble under Lhls rule 1he courL may
however ln a crlmlnal case allow evldence of a [uvenlle ad[udlcaLlon of a wlLness oLher Lhan Lhe
accused lf convlcLlon of Lhe offense would be admlsslble Lo aLLack Lhe credlblllLy of an adulL and
Lhe courL ls saLlsfled LhaL admlsslon ln evldence ls necessary for a falr deLermlnaLlon of Lhe
lssue of gullL or lnnocence
(e) endency of appeal
1he pendency of an appeal Lherefrom does noL render evldence of a convlcLlon lnadmlsslble
Lvldence of Lhe pendency of an appeal ls admlsslble

-otes of Adv|sory Comm|ttee on ku|es
As a means of lmpeachmenL evldence of convlcLlon of crlme ls slgnlflcanL only because lL
sLands as proof of Lhe commlsslon of Lhe underlylng crlmlnal acL 1here ls llLLle dlssenL from Lhe
general proposlLlon LhaL aL leasL some crlmes are relevanL Lo credlblllLy buL much dlsagreemenL
among Lhe cases and commenLaLors abouL whlch crlmes are usable for Lhls purpose See
McCormlck 43 2 WrlghL lederal racLlce and rocedure Crlmlnal 416 (1969) 1he welghL
of LradlLlonal auLhorlLy has been Lo allow use of felonles generally wlLhouL regard Lo Lhe naLure
of Lhe parLlcular offense and of crlmen falsl wlLhouL regard Lo Lhe grade of Lhe offense 1hls ls
Lhe vlew accepLed by Congress ln Lhe 1970 amendmenL of 14303 of Lhe ulsLrlcL of Columbla
Code L 91338 84 SLaL 473 unlform 8ule 21 and Model Code 8ule 106 permlL only crlmes
lnvolvlng dlshonesLy or false sLaLemenL CLhers have LhoughL LhaL Lhe Lrlal [udge should have
dlscreLlon Lo exclude convlcLlons lf Lhe probaLlve value of Lhe evldence of Lhe crlme ls
subsLanLlally ouLwelghed by Lhe danger of unfalr pre[udlce Luck v unlLed SLaLes 121
uSAppuC 131 348 l2d 763 (1963) McCowan lmpeachmenL of Crlmlnal uefendanLs by
rlor ConvlcLlons 1970 Law Soc Crder 1 WhaLever may be Lhe merlLs of Lhose vlews Lhls
rule ls drafLed Lo accord wlLh Lhe Congresslonal pollcy manlfesLed ln Lhe 1970 leglslaLlon
1he proposed rule lncorporaLes cerLaln baslc safeguards ln Lerms appllcable Lo all wlLnesses
buL of parLlcular slgnlflcance Lo an accused who elecLs Lo LesLlfy 1hese proLecLlons lnclude Lhe
lmposlLlon of deflnlLe Llme llmlLaLlons glvlng effecL Lo demonsLraLed rehablllLaLlon and
generally excludlng [uvenlle ad[udlcaLlons
Subdlvlslon (a)
lor purposes of lmpeachmenL crlmes are dlvlded lnLo Lwo caLegorles by Lhe rule (1) Lhose of
whaL ls generally regarded as felony grade wlLhouL parLlcular regard Lo Lhe naLure of Lhe
offense and (2) Lhose lnvolvlng dlshonesLy or false sLaLemenL wlLhouL regard Lo Lhe grade of
Lhe offense rovable convlcLlons are noL llmlLed Lo vlolaLlons of federal law 8y reason of our
consLlLuLlonal sLrucLure Lhe federal caLalog of crlmes ls far from belng a compleLe one and
resorL musL be had Lo Lhe laws of Lhe sLaLes for Lhe speclflcaLlon of many crlmes lor example
slmple LhefL as compared wlLh LhefL from lnLersLaLe commerce CLher lnsLances of borrowlng
are Lhe AsslmllaLlve Crlmes AcL maklng Lhe sLaLe law of crlmes appllcable Lo Lhe speclal
LerrlLorlal and marlLlme [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe unlLed SLaLes 18 uSC 13 and Lhe provlslon of Lhe
!udlclal Code dlsquallfylng persons as [urors on Lhe grounds of sLaLe as well as federal
convlcLlons 28 uSC 1863 lor evaluaLlon of Lhe crlme ln Lerms of serlousness reference ls
made Lo Lhe congresslonal measuremenL of felony (sub[ecL Lo lmprlsonmenL ln excess of one
year) raLher Lhan adopLlng sLaLe deflnlLlons whlch vary conslderably See 28 uSC 1863
supra dlsquallfylng [urors for convlcLlon ln sLaLe or federal courL of crlme punlshable by
lmprlsonmenL for more Lhan one year
Subdlvlslon (b)
lew sLaLuLes recognlze a Llme llmlL on lmpeachmenL by evldence of convlcLlon Powever
pracLlcal conslderaLlons of falrness and relevancy demand LhaL some boundary be recognlzed
See Ladd CredlblllLy 1esLsCurrenL 1rends 89 uaL8ev 166 176177 (1940) 1hls porLlon of
Lhe rule ls derlved from Lhe proposal advanced ln 8ecommendaLlon roposlng ln Lvldence
Code 788(3) p 142 CalLaw 8evCommn (1963) Lhough noL adopLed See Callfornla
Lvldence Code 788
Subdlvlslon (c)
A pardon or lLs equlvalenL granLed solely for Lhe purpose of resLorlng clvll rlghLs losL by vlrLue of
a convlcLlon has no relevance Lo an lnqulry lnLo characLer lf however Lhe pardon or oLher
proceedlng ls hlnged upon a showlng of rehablllLaLlon Lhe slLuaLlon ls oLherwlse 1he resulL
under Lhe rule ls Lo render Lhe convlcLlon lnadmlsslble 1he alLernaLlve of allowlng ln evldence
boLh Lhe convlcLlon and Lhe rehablllLaLlon has noL been adopLed for reasons of pollcy economy
of Llme and dlfflculLles of evaluaLlon
A slmllar provlslon ls conLalned ln Callfornla Lvldence Code 788 Cf ALl Model enal Code
roposed Cfflclal urafL 3066(3)(e) (1962) and dlscusslon ln ALl roceedlngs 310 (1961)
ardons based on lnnocence have Lhe effecL of course of nulllfylng Lhe convlcLlon ab lnlLlo
Subdlvlslon (d)
1he prevalllng vlew has been LhaL a [uvenlle ad[udlcaLlon ls noL usable for lmpeachmenL
1homas v unlLed SLaLes 74 AppuC 167 121 l2d 903 (1941) CoLLon v unlLed SLaLes 333
l2d 480 (10Lh Clr 1966) 1hls concluslon was based upon a varleLy of clrcumsLances 8y vlrLue
of lLs lnformallLy frequenLly dlmlnlshed quanLum of requlred proof and oLher deparLures from
accepLed sLandards for crlmlnal Lrlals under Lhe Lheory of parens paLrlae Lhe [uvenlle
ad[udlcaLlon was consldered Lo lack Lhe preclslon and general probaLlve value of Lhe crlmlnal
convlcLlon Whlle ln re CaulL 387 uS 1 87 SCL 1428 18 LLd2d 327 (1967) no doubL
ellmlnaLes Lhese characLerlsLlcs lnsofar as ob[ecLlonable oLher obsLacles remaln racLlcal
problems of admlnlsLraLlon are ralsed by Lhe common provlslons ln [uvenlle leglslaLlon LhaL
records be kepL confldenLlal and LhaL Lhey be desLroyed afLer a shorL Llme Whlle CaulL was
skepLlcal as Lo Lhe reallLles of confldenLlallLy of [uvenlle records lL also saw no consLlLuLlonal
obsLacles Lo lmprovemenL 387 uS aL 23 87 SCL 1428 See also noLe 8lghLs and
8ehablllLaLlon ln Lhe !uvenlle CourLs 67 ColumL8ev 281 289 (1967) ln addlLlon pollcy
conslderaLlons much akln Lo Lhose whlch dlcLaLe excluslon of adulL convlcLlons afLer
rehablllLaLlon has been esLabllshed sLrongly suggesL a rule of excludlng [uvenlle ad[udlcaLlons
AdmlLLedly however Lhe rehablllLaLlve process may ln a glven case be a demonsLraLed fallure
or Lhe sLraLeglc lmporLance of a glven wlLness may be so greaL as Lo requlre Lhe overrldlng of
general pollcy ln Lhe lnLeresLs of parLlcular [usLlce See Clles v Maryland 386 uS 66 87 SCL
793 17 LLd2d 737 (1967) Wlgmore was ouLspoken ln hls condemnaLlon of Lhe dlsallowance
of [uvenlle ad[udlcaLlons Lo lmpeach especlally when Lhe wlLness ls Lhe complalnanL ln a case
of molesLlng a mlnor 1 Wlgmore 196 3 ld 924a 980 1he rule recognlzes dlscreLlon ln Lhe
[udge Lo effecL an accommodaLlon among Lhese varlous facLors by deparLlng from Lhe general
prlnclple of excluslon ln deference Lo Lhe general paLLern and pollcy of [uvenlle sLaLuLes
however no dlscreLlon ls accorded when Lhe wlLness ls Lhe accused ln a crlmlnal case
Subdlvlslon (e)
1he presumpLlon of correcLness whlch oughL Lo aLLend [udlclal proceedlngs supporLs Lhe
poslLlon LhaL pendency of an appeal does noL preclude use of a convlcLlon for lmpeachmenL
unlLed SLaLes v Lmplre acklng Co 174 l2d 16 (7Lh Clr1949) cerL denled 337 uS 939 69
SCL 1334 93 LLd 1738 8loch v unlLed SLaLes 226 l2d 183 (9Lh Clr1933) cerL denled 330
uS 948 76 SCL 323 100 LLd 826 and 333 uS 939 77 SCL 868 1 LLd2d 910 and see
newman v unlLed SLaLes 331 l2d 968 (8Lh Clr1964) ConLra Campbell v unlLed SLaLes 83
uSAppuC 133 176 l2d 43 (1949) 1he pendency of an appeal ls however a quallfylng
clrcumsLance properly conslderable
ku|e 612 Wr|t|ng Used to kefresh Memory
LxcepL as oLherwlse provlded ln crlmlnal proceedlngs by secLlon 3300 of LlLle 18 unlLed SLaLes
Code lf a wlLness uses a wrlLlng Lo refresh memory for Lhe purpose of LesLlfylng elLher
(1) whlle LesLlfylng or
(2) before LesLlfylng lf Lhe courL ln lLs dlscreLlon deLermlnes lL ls necessary ln Lhe lnLeresLs of
[usLlce an adverse parLy ls enLlLled Lo have Lhe wrlLlng produced aL Lhe hearlng Lo lnspecL lL Lo
crossexamlne Lhe wlLness Lhereon and Lo lnLroduce ln evldence Lhose porLlons whlch relaLe Lo
Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe wlLness lf lL ls clalmed LhaL Lhe wrlLlng conLalns maLLers noL relaLed Lo Lhe
sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe LesLlmony Lhe courL shall examlne Lhe wrlLlng ln camera exclse any
porLlons noL so relaLed and order dellvery of Lhe remalnder Lo Lhe parLy enLlLled LhereLo Any
porLlon wlLhheld over ob[ecLlons shall be preserved and made avallable Lo Lhe appellaLe courL
ln Lhe evenL of an appeal lf a wrlLlng ls noL produced or dellvered pursuanL Lo order under Lhls
rule Lhe courL shall make any order [usLlce requlres excepL LhaL ln crlmlnal cases when Lhe
prosecuLlon elecLs noL Lo comply Lhe order shall be one sLrlklng Lhe LesLlmony or lf Lhe courL ln
lLs dlscreLlon deLermlnes LhaL Lhe lnLeresLs of [usLlce so requlre declarlng a mlsLrlal
noLes of Advlsory CommlLLee on 8ules

1he LreaLmenL of wrlLlngs used Lo refresh recollecLlon whlle on Lhe sLand ls ln accord wlLh
seLLled docLrlne McCormlck 9 p 13 1he bulk of Lhe case law has however denled Lhe
exlsLence of any rlghL Lo access by Lhe opponenL when Lhe wrlLlng ls used prlor Lo Laklng Lhe
sLand Lhough Lhe [udge may have dlscreLlon ln Lhe maLLer Coldman v unlLed SLaLes 316 uS
129 62 SCL 993 86 LLd 1322 (1942) needelman v unlLed SLaLes 261 l2d 802 (3Lh Clr
1938) cerL dlsmlssed 362 uS 600 80 SCL 960 4 LLd2d 980 rehearlng denled 363 uS 838
80 SCL 1606 4 LLd2d 1739 AnnoL 82 AL82d 473 362 and 7 AL83d 181 247 An
lncreaslng group of cases has repudlaLed Lhe dlsLlncLlon eople v ScoLL 29 lll2d 97 193 nL2d
814 (1963) SLaLe v Muccl 23 n! 423 136 A2d 761 (1937) SLaLe v PunL 23 n! 314 138 A2d
1 (1938) SLaLe v uesolvers 40 8l 89 100 A 64 (1917) and Lhls poslLlon ls belleved Lo be
correcL As Wlgmore puL lL Lhe rlsk of lmposlLlon and Lhe need of safeguard ls [usL as greaL ln
boLh slLuaLlons 3 Wlgmore 762 p 111 1o Lhe same effecL ls McCormlck 9 p 17

1he purpose of Lhe phrase for Lhe purpose of LesLlfylng ls Lo safeguard agalnsL uslng Lhe rule
as a preLexL for wholesale exploraLlon of an opposlng parLys flles and Lo lnsure LhaL access ls
llmlLed only Lo Lhose wrlLlngs whlch may falrly be sald ln facL Lo have an lmpacL upon Lhe
LesLlmony of Lhe wlLness

1he purpose of Lhe rule ls Lhe same as LhaL of Lhe !encks sLaLuLe 18 uSC 3300 Lo promoLe
Lhe search of credlblllLy and memory 1he same senslLlvlLy Lo dlsclosure of governmenL flles
may be lnvolved hence Lhe rule ls expressly made sub[ecL Lo Lhe sLaLuLe subdlvlslon (a) of
whlch provldes ln any crlmlnal prosecuLlon broughL by Lhe unlLed SLaLes no sLaLemenL or
reporL ln Lhe possesslon of Lhe unlLed SLaLes whlch was made by a CovernmenL wlLness or
prospecLlve CovernmenL wlLness (oLher Lhan Lhe defendanL) shall be Lhe sub[ecL of a subpena
dlscovery or lnspecLlon unLll sald wlLness has LesLlfled on dlrecL examlnaLlon ln Lhe Lrlal of Lhe
case lLems falllng wlLhln Lhe purvlew of Lhe sLaLuLe are produclble only as provlded by lLs
Lerms alermo v unlLed SLaLes 360 uS 343 331 (1939) and dlsclosure under Lhe rule ls
llmlLed slmllarly by Lhe sLaLuLory condlLlons WlLh Lhls llmlLaLlon ln mlnd some dlfferences of
appllcaLlon may be noLed 1he !encks sLaLuLe applles only Lo sLaLemenLs of wlLnesses Lhe rule
ls noL so llmlLed 1he sLaLuLe applles only Lo crlmlnal cases Lhe rule applles Lo all cases 1he
sLaLuLe applles only Lo governmenL wlLnesses Lhe rule applles Lo all wlLnesses 1he sLaLuLe
conLalns no requlremenL LhaL Lhe sLaLemenL be consulLed for purposes of refreshmenL before
or whlle LesLlfylng Lhe rule so requlres Slnce many wrlLlngs would quallfy under elLher sLaLuLe
or rule a subsLanLlal overlap exlsLs buL Lhe ldenLlLy of procedures makes Lhls of no lmporLance

1he consequences of nonproducLlon by Lhe governmenL ln a crlmlnal case are Lhose of Lhe
!encks sLaLuLe sLrlklng Lhe LesLlmony or ln excepLlonal cases a mlsLrlal 18 uSC 3300(d) ln
oLher cases Lhese alLernaLlves are unduly llmlLed and such posslblllLles as conLempL dlsmlssal
flndlng lssues agalnsL Lhe offender and Lhe llke are avallable See 8ule 16(g) of Lhe lederal
8ules of Crlmlnal rocedure and 8ule 37(b) of Lhe lederal 8ules of Clvll rocedure for
approprlaLe sancLlons
RuIe 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses
(u) Exumlnlng wltness concernlng prlor stutement.
In exumlnlng u wltness concernlng u prlor stutement mude by the wltness, whether wrltten or not, the
stutement need not be shown nor lts contents dlsclosed to the wltness ut thut tlme, but on request the
sume shull be shown or dlsclosed to opposlng counsel.
(b) Extrlnslc evldence of prlor lnconslstent stutement of wltness.
Extrlnslc evldence of u prlor lnconslstent stutement by u wltness ls not udmlsslble unless the wltness
ls ufforded un opportunlty to expluln or deny the sume und the opposlte purty ls ufforded un
opportunlty to lnterrogute the wltness thereon, or the lnterests of |ustlce otherwlse requlre. Thls
provlslon does not upply to udmlsslons of u purty-opponent us deflned ln rule 801(d)(2).
Notes of Advlsory Commlttee on Rules.
Subdlvlslon (u).
The Queen's Cuse, 2 Br. & B. 284, 129 Eng. Rep. 976 (1820), luld down the requlrement thut u cross-
exumlner, prlor to questlonlng the wltness ubout hls own prlor stutement ln wrltlng, must flrst show lt
to the wltness. Abollshed by stutute ln the country of lts orlgln, the requlrement nevertheless gulned
currency ln the Unlted Stutes. The rule ubollshes thls useless lmpedlment, to cross-exumlnutlon.
Ludd, Some Observutlons on Credlblllty: Impeuchment of Wltnesses, 52 Cornell L.Q. 239, 246-247
(1967); McCormlck 28; 4 Wlgmore 1259-1260. Both orul und wrltten stutements ure lncluded.
The provlslon for dlsclosure to counsel ls deslgned to protect ugulnst unwurrunted lnslnuutlons thut u
stutement hus been mude when the fuct ls to the contrury.
The rule does not defeut the uppllcutlon of Rule 1002 relutlng to productlon of the orlglnul when the
contents of u wrltlng ure sought to be proved. Nor does lt defeut the uppllcutlon of Rule 26(b)(3) of
the Rules of Clvll Procedure, us revlsed, entltllng u person on request to u copy of hls own stutement,
though the operutlon of the lutter muy be suspended temporurlly.
Subdlvlslon (b).
The fumlllur foundutlon requlrement thut un lmpeuchlng stutement flrst be shown to the wltness
before lt cun be proved by extrlnslc evldence ls preserved but wlth some modlflcutlons. See Ludd,
Some Observutlons on Credlblllty: Impeuchment of Wltnesses, 52 Cornell L.Q. 239, 247 (1967). The
trudltlonul lnslstence thut the uttentlon of the wltness be dlrected to the stutement on cross-
exumlnutlon ls reluxed ln fuvor of slmply provldlng the wltness un opportunlty to expluln und the
opposlte purty un opportunlty to exumlne on the stutement, wlth no speclflcutlon of uny purtlculur
tlme or sequence. Under thls procedure, severul colluslve wltnesses cun be exumlned before
dlsclosure of u |olnt prlor lnconslstent stutement. See Comment to Cullfornlu Evldence Code 770.
Also, dungers of overslght ure reduced. See McCormlck 37, p. 68. In order to ullow for such
eventuulltles us the wltness becomlng unuvulluble by the tlme the stutement ls dlscovered, u meusure
of dlscretlon ls conferred upon the |udge. Slmllur provlslons ure found ln Cullfornlu Evldence Code
770 und New Jersey Evldence Rule 22(b).
Under prlnclples of expresslon unlus the rule does not upply to lmpeuchment by evldence of prlor
lnconslstent conduct. The use of lnconslstent stutements to lmpeuch u heursuy declurutlon ls treuted
ln Rule 806.
RuIe 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form
of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are
(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear
understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in
issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
Notes 701
Notes of Advlsory Commlttee on Rules.

The rule retulns the trudltlonul ob|ectlve of puttlng the trler of fuct ln possesslon of un uccurute
reproductlon of the event.

Llmltutlon (u) ls the fumlllur requlrement of flrsthund knowledge or observutlon.

Llmltutlon (b) ls phrused ln terms of requlrlng testlmony to be helpful ln resolvlng lssues. Wltnesses
often flnd dlfflculty ln expresslng themselves ln lunguuge whlch ls not thut of un oplnlon or
concluslon. Whlle the courts huve mude concesslons ln certuln recurrlng sltuutlons, necesslty us u
stundurd for permlttlng oplnlons und concluslons hus proved too eluslve und too unuduptuble to
purtlculur sltuutlons for purposes of sutlsfuctory |udlclul udmlnlstrutlon. McCormlck 11. Moreover,
the pructlcul lmposslblllty of determlnutlng by rule whut ls u "fuct," demonstruted by u century of
lltlgutlon of the questlon of whut ls u fuct for purposes of pleudlng under the Fleld Code, extends lnto
evldence ulso. 7 Wlgmore 1919. The rule ussumes thut the nuturul churucterlstlcs of the udversury
system wlll generully leud to un ucceptuble result, slnce the detulled uccount currles more convlctlon
thun the broud ussertlon, und u luwyer cun be expected to dlspluy hls wltness to the best udvuntuge.
If he fulls to do so, cross-exumlnutlon und urgument wlll polnt up the weukness. See Ludd, Expert
Testlmony, 5 Vund.L.Rev. 414, 415-417 (1952). If, desplte these conslderutlons, uttempts ure mude
to lntroduce meunlngless ussertlons whlch umount to llttle more thun chooslng up sldes, excluslon for
luck of helpfulness ls culled for by the rule.

The lunguuge of the rule ls substuntlully thut of Unlform. Rule 56(1). Slmllur provlslons ure Cullfornlu
Evldence Code 800; Kunsus Code of Clvll Procedure 60-456(u); New Jersey Evldence Rule
56(1).

Notes of Advlsory Commlttee on 1987 umendments to Rules.

The umendments ure technlcul. No substuntlve chunge ls lntended.

Commlttee Notes on Rules - 2000 Amendment

Rule 701 hus been umended to ellmlnute the rlsk thut the rellublllty requlrements set forth ln Rule 702
wlll be evuded through the slmple expedlent of profferlng un expert ln luy wltness clothlng. Under the
umendment, u wltness' testlmony must be scrutlnlzed under the rules regulutlng expert oplnlon to the
extent thut the wltness ls provldlng testlmony bused on sclentlflc, technlcul, or other speclullzed
knowledge wlthln the scope of Rule 702. See generully Asplundh Mfg. Dlv. v. Benton Hurbor Eng'g,
57 F.3d 1190 (3d Clr. 1995). By chunnellng testlmony thut ls uctuully expert testlmony to Rule 702,
the umendment ulso ensures thut u purty wlll not evude the expert wltness dlsclosure requlrements
set forth ln Fed.R.Clv.P. 26 und Fed.R.Crlm.P. 16 by slmply culllng un expert wltness ln the gulse of
u luyperson. See Joseph, Emerglng Expert Issues Under the 1993 Dlsclosure Amendments to the
Federul Rules of Clvll Procedure, 164 F.R.D. 97, 108 (1996) (notlng thut ''there ls no good reuson to
ullow whut ls essentlully surprlse expert testlmony,'' und thut ''the Court should be vlgllunt to preclude
munlpulutlve conduct deslgned to thwurt the expert dlsclosure und dlscovery process''). See ulso
Unlted Stutes v. Flguerou-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Clr. 1997) (luw enforcement ugents
testlfylng thut the defendunt's conduct wus conslstent wlth thut of u drug trufflcker could not testlfy us
luy wltnesses; to permlt such testlmony under Rule 701 ''subverts the requlrements of Federul Rule of
Crlmlnul Procedure 16(u)(1)(E)'').

The umendment does not dlstlngulsh between expert und luy wltnesses, but ruther between expert
und luy testlmony. Certulnly lt ls posslble for the sume wltness to provlde both luy und expert
testlmony ln u slngle cuse. See, e.g., Unlted Stutes v. Flguerou-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Clr.
1997) (luw enforcement ugents could testlfy thut the defendunt wus uctlng susplclously, wlthout belng
quullfled us experts; however, the rules on experts were uppllcuble where the ugents testlfled on the
busls of extenslve experlence thut the defendunt wus uslng code words to refer to drug quuntltles und
prlces). The umendment mukes cleur thut uny purt of u wltness' testlmony thut ls bused upon
sclentlflc, technlcul, or other speclullzed knowledge wlthln the scope of Rule 702 ls governed by the
stundurds of Rule 702 und the correspondlng dlsclosure requlrements of the Clvll und Crlmlnul Rules.

The umendment ls not lntended to uffect the ''prototyplcul exumple(s) of the type of evldence
contempluted by the udoptlon of Rule 701 relut(lng) to the uppeurunce of persons or thlngs, ldentlty,
the munner of conduct, competency of u person, degrees of llght or durkness, sound, slze, welght,
dlstunce, und un endless number of ltems thut cunnot be descrlbed fuctuully ln words upurt from
lnferences.'' Asplundh Mfg. Dlv. v. Benton Hurbor Eng'g, 57 F.3d 1190, 1196 (3d Clr. 1995).

For exumple, most courts huve permltted the owner or offlcer of u buslness to testlfy to the vulue or
pro|ected proflts of the buslness, wlthout the necesslty of quullfylng the wltness us un uccountunt,
upprulser, or slmllur expert. See, e.g., Llghtnlng Lube, Inc. v. Wltco Corp. 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Clr. 1993)
(no ubuse of dlscretlon ln permlttlng the plulntlff's owner to glve luy oplnlon testlmony us to dumuges,
us lt wus bused on hls knowledge und purtlclputlon ln the duy-to-duy uffulrs of the buslness). Such
oplnlon testlmony ls udmltted not becuuse of experlence, trulnlng or speclullzed knowledge wlthln the
reulm of un expert, but becuuse of the purtlculurlzed knowledge thut the wltness hus by vlrtue of hls
or her posltlon ln the buslness. The umendment does not purport to chunge thls unulysls. Slmllurly,
courts huve permltted luy wltnesses to testlfy thut u substunce uppeured to be u nurcotlc, so long us u
foundutlon of fumlllurlty wlth the substunce ls estubllshed. See, e.g., Unlted Stutes v. Westbrook, 896
F.2d 330 (8th Clr. 1990) (two luy wltnesses who were heuvy umphetumlne users were properly
permltted to testlfy thut u substunce wus umphetumlne; but lt wus error to permlt unother wltness to
muke such un ldentlflcutlon where she hud no experlence wlth umphetumlnes). Such testlmony ls not
bused on speclullzed knowledge wlthln the scope of Rule 702, but ruther ls bused upon u luyperson's
personul knowledge. If, however, thut wltness were to descrlbe how u nurcotlc wus munufuctured, or
to descrlbe the lntrlcute worklngs of u nurcotlc dlstrlbutlon network, then the wltness would huve to
quullfy us un expert under Rule 702. Unlted Stutes v. Flguerou-Lopez, supru.

The umendment lncorporutes the dlstlnctlons set forth ln Stute v. Brown, 836 S.W.2d 530, 549
(1992), u cuse lnvolvlng former Tennessee Rule of Evldence 701, u rule thut precluded luy wltness
testlmony bused on ''speclul knowledge.'' In Brown, the court declured thut the dlstlnctlon between
luy und expert wltness testlmony ls thut luy testlmony ''results from u process of reusonlng fumlllur ln
everyduy llfe,'' whlle expert testlmony ''results from u process of reusonlng whlch cun be mustered
only by speclullsts ln the fleld.'' The court ln Brown noted thut u luy wltness wlth experlence could
testlfy thut u substunce uppeured to be blood, but thut u wltness would huve to quullfy us un expert
before he could testlfy thut brulslng uround the eyes ls lndlcutlve of skull truumu. Thut ls the klnd of
dlstlnctlon mude by the umendment to thls Rule.
RuIe 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony
is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of
reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles
and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
RuIe 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts
The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion
or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or
before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the
particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or
data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference
to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be
disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the
court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate
the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.


Notes on 703
Notes of Advlsory Commlttee on Rules.

Fucts or dutu upon whlch expert oplnlons ure bused muy, under the rule, be derlved from three
posslble sources. The flrst ls the flrsthund observutlon of the wltness, wlth oplnlons bused thereon
trudltlonully ullowed. A treutlng physlclun uffords un exumple. Rhelngold, The Busls of Medlcul
Testlmony, 15 Vund.L.Rev. 473, 489 (1962). Whether he must flrst relute hls observutlons ls treuted
ln Rule 705. The second source, presentutlon ut the trlul, ulso reflects exlstlng pructlce. The
technlque muy be the fumlllur hypothetlcul questlon or huvlng the expert uttend the trlul und heur the
testlmony estubllshlng the fucts. Problems of determlnlng whut testlmony the expert relled upon,
when the lutter technlque ls employed und the testlmony ls ln confllct, muy be resolved by resort to
Rule 705. The thlrd source contempluted by the rule conslsts of presentutlon of dutu to the expert
outslde of court und other thun by hls own perceptlon. In thls respect the rule ls deslgned to brouden
the busls for expert oplnlons beyond thut current ln muny |urlsdlctlons und to brlng the |udlclul
pructlce lnto llne wlth the pructlce of the experts themselves when not ln court. Thus u physlclun ln
hls own pructlce buses hls dlugnosls on lnformutlon from numerous sources und of conslderuble
vurlety, lncludlng stutements by putlents und relutlves, reports und oplnlons from nurses, technlcluns
und other doctors, hospltul records, und X ruys. Most of them ure udmlsslble ln evldence, but only
wlth the expendlture of substuntlul tlme ln produclng und exumlnlng vurlous uuthentlcutlng wltnesses.
The physlclun mukes llfe-und-deuth declslons ln rellunce upon them. Hls vulldutlon, expertly
performed und sub|ect to cross-exumlnutlon, ought to sufflce for |udlclul purposes. Rhelngold, supru,
ut 531; McCormlck 15. A slmllur provlslon ls Cullfornlu Evldence Code 801(b).

The rule ulso offers u more sutlsfuctory busls for rullng upon the udmlsslblllty of publlc oplnlon poll
evldence. Attentlon ls dlrected to the vulldlty of the technlques employed ruther thun to relutlvely
frultless lnqulrles whether heursuy ls lnvolved. See Judge Felnberg's cureful unulysls ln Zlppo Mfg.
Co. v. Rogers Imports, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 670 (S.D.N.Y. 1963) See ulso Blum et ul, The Art of
Oplnlon Reseurch: A Luwyer's Apprulsul of un Emerglng Servlce, 24 U.Chl.L.Rev. 1 (1956);
Bonynge, Trudemurk Surveys und Technlques und Thelr Use ln Lltlgutlon, 48 A.B.A.J. 329 (1962);
Zelsel, The Unlqueness of Survey Evldence, 45 Cornell L.Q. 322 (1960); Annot., 76 A.L.R.2d 919.

If lt be feured thut enlurgement of permlsslble dutu muy tend to breuk down the rules of excluslon
unduly, notlce should be tuken thut the rule requlres thut the fucts or dutu "be of u type reusonubly
relled upon by experts ln the purtlculur fleld." The lunguuge would not wurrunt udmlttlng ln evldence
the oplnlon of un "uccldentologlst" us to the polnt of lmpuct ln un uutomoblle colllslon bused on
stutements of bystunders, slnce thls requlrement ls not sutlsfled. See Comment, Cul.Luw
Rev.Comm'n, Recommendutlon Proposlng un Evldence Code 148-150 (1965).

Commlttee Notes on Rules - 2000 Amendment
Rule 703 hus been umended to emphuslze thut when un expert reusonubly relles on lnudmlsslble
lnformutlon to form un oplnlon or lnference, the underlylng lnformutlon ls not udmlsslble slmply
becuuse the oplnlon or lnference ls udmltted. Courts huve reuched dlfferent results on how to treut
lnudmlsslble lnformutlon when lt ls reusonubly relled upon by un expert ln formlng un oplnlon or
druwlng un lnference. Compure Unlted Stutes v. Rolllns, 862 F.2d 1282 (7th Clr. 1988) (udmlttlng, us
purt of the busls of un FBI ugent's expert oplnlon on the meunlng of code lunguuge, the heursuy
stutements of un lnformunt), wlth Unlted Stutes v. 0.59 Acres of Lund, 109 F.3d 1493 (9th Clr. 1997)
(error to udmlt heursuy offered us the busls of un expert oplnlon, wlthout u llmltlng lnstructlon).
Commentutors huve ulso tuken dlfferlng vlews. See, e.g., Ronuld Curlson, Pollclng the Buses of
Modern Expert Testlmony, 39 Vund.L.Rev. 577 (1986) (udvocutlng llmlts on the |ury's conslderutlon
of otherwlse lnudmlsslble evldence used us the busls for un expert oplnlon); Puul Rlce, Inudmlsslble
Evldence us u Busls for Expert Testlmony: A Response to Professor Curlson, 40 Vund.L.Rev. 583
(1987) (udvocutlng unrestrlcted use of lnformutlon reusonubly relled upon by un expert).
When lnformutlon ls reusonubly relled upon by un expert und yet ls udmlsslble only for the purpose of
usslstlng the |ury ln evuluutlng un expert's oplnlon, u trlul court upplylng thls Rule must conslder the
lnformutlon's probutlve vulue ln usslstlng the |ury to welgh the expert's oplnlon on the one hund, und
the rlsk of pre|udlce resultlng from the |ury's potentlul mlsuse of the lnformutlon for substuntlve
purposes on the other. The lnformutlon muy be dlsclosed to the |ury, upon ob|ectlon, only lf the trlul
court flnds thut the probutlve vulue of the lnformutlon ln usslstlng the |ury to evuluute the expert's
oplnlon substuntlully outwelghs lts pre|udlclul effect. If the otherwlse lnudmlsslble lnformutlon ls
udmltted under thls bulunclng test, the trlul |udge must glve u llmltlng lnstructlon upon request,
lnformlng the |ury thut the underlylng lnformutlon must not be used for substuntlve purposes. See
Rule 105. In determlnlng the upproprlute course, the trlul court should conslder the probuble
effectlveness or luck of effectlveness of u llmltlng lnstructlon under the purtlculur clrcumstunces.
The umendment governs only the dlsclosure to the |ury of lnformutlon thut ls reusonubly relled on by
un expert, when thut lnformutlon ls not udmlsslble for substuntlve purposes. It ls not lntended to
uffect the udmlsslblllty of un expert's testlmony. Nor does the umendment prevent un expert from
relylng on lnformutlon thut ls lnudmlsslble for substuntlve purposes.

Nothlng ln thls Rule restrlcts the presentutlon of underlylng expert fucts or dutu when offered by un
udverse purty. See Rule 705. Of course, un udversury's uttuck on un expert's busls wlll often open the
door to u proponent's rebuttul wlth lnformutlon thut wus reusonubly relled upon by the expert, even lf
thut lnformutlon would not huve been dlscloseuble lnltlully under the bulunclng test provlded by thls
umendment. Moreover, ln some clrcumstunces the proponent mlght wlsh to dlsclose lnformutlon thut
ls relled upon by the expert ln order to ''remove the stlng'' from the opponent's untlclputed uttuck, und
thereby prevent the |ury from druwlng un unfulr negutlve lnference. The trlul court should tuke thls
conslderutlon lnto uccount ln upplylng the bulunclng test provlded by thls umendment.
Thls umendment covers fucts or dutu thut cunnot be udmltted for uny purpose other thun to usslst the
|ury to evuluute the expert's oplnlon. The bulunclng test provlded ln thls umendment ls not uppllcuble
to fucts or dutu thut ure udmlsslble for uny other purpose but huve not yet been offered for such u
purpose ut the tlme the expert testlfles.
The umendment provldes u presumptlon ugulnst dlsclosure to the |ury of lnformutlon used us the
busls of un expert's oplnlon und not udmlsslble for uny substuntlve purpose, when thut lnformutlon ls
offered by the proponent of the expert. In u multl-purty cuse, where one purty proffers un expert
whose testlmony ls ulso beneflclul to other purtles, euch such purty should be deemed u ''proponent''
wlthln the meunlng of the umendment.



RuIe 801. Definitions
The following definitions apply under this article:
(u) Stutement.
A "stutement" ls (1) un orul or wrltten ussertlon or (2) nonverbul conduct of u person, lf lt ls lntended
by the person us un ussertlon.
(b) Declurunt.
A "declurunt" ls u person who mukes u stutement.
(c) Heursuy.
"Heursuy" ls u stutement, other thun one mude by the declurunt whlle testlfylng ut the trlul or heurlng,
offered ln evldence to prove the truth of the mutter usserted.
(d) Stutements whlch ure not heursuy.
A stutement ls not heursuy lf--
(1) Prlor stutement by wltness. The declurunt testlfles ut the trlul or heurlng und ls sub|ect to cross-
exumlnutlon concernlng the stutement, und the stutement ls (A) lnconslstent wlth the declurunt's
testlmony, und wus glven under outh sub|ect to the penulty of per|ury ut u trlul, heurlng, or other
proceedlng, or ln u deposltlon, or (B) conslstent wlth the declurunt's testlmony und ls offered to
rebut un express or lmplled churge ugulnst the declurunt of recent fubrlcutlon or lmproper lnfluence
or motlve, or (C) one of ldentlflcutlon of u person mude ufter percelvlng the person; or
(2)Admlsslon by purty-opponent. The stutement ls offered ugulnst u purty und ls
(A) the purty's own stutement, ln elther un lndlvlduul or u representutlve cupuclty or
(B) u stutement of whlch the purty hus munlfested un udoptlon or bellef ln lts truth, or
(C) u stutement by u person uuthorlzed by the purty to muke u stutement concernlng the sub|ect,
or
(D) u stutement by the purty's ugent or servunt concernlng u mutter wlthln the scope of the
ugency or employment, mude durlng the exlstence of the relutlonshlp, or
(E) u stutement by u coconsplrutor of u purty durlng the course und ln furtherunce of the
consplrucy.
The contents of the stutement shull be consldered but ure not ulone sufflclent to estubllsh the
declurunt's uuthorlty under subdlvlslon (C), the ugency or employment relutlonshlp und scope
thereof under subdlvlslon (D), or the exlstence of the consplrucy und the purtlclputlon thereln of
the declurunt und the purty ugulnst whom the stutement ls offered under subdlvlslon (E).
nC1LS 801
noLes of Advlsory CommlLLee on 8ules

Subdlvlslon (a)

1he deflnlLlon of sLaLemenL assumes lmporLance because Lhe Lerm ls used ln Lhe deflnlLlon of
hearsay ln subdlvlslon (c) 1he effecL of Lhe deflnlLlon of sLaLemenL ls Lo exclude from Lhe
operaLlon of Lhe hearsay rule all evldence of conducL verbal or nonverbal noL lnLended as an
asserLlon 1he key Lo Lhe deflnlLlon ls LhaL noLhlng ls an asserLlon unless lnLended Lo be one

lL can scarcely be doubLed LhaL an asserLlon made ln words ls lnLended by Lhe declaranL Lo be
an asserLlon Pence verbal asserLlons readlly fall lnLo Lhe caLegory of sLaLemenL WheLher
nonverbal conducL should be regarded as a sLaLemenL for purposes of deflnlng hearsay requlres
furLher conslderaLlon Some nonverbal conducL such as Lhe acL of polnLlng Lo ldenLlfy a suspecL
ln a llneup ls clearly Lhe equlvalenL of words asserLlve ln naLure and Lo be regarded as a
sLaLemenL CLher nonverbal conducL however may be offered as evldence LhaL Lhe person
acLed as he dld because of hls bellef ln Lhe exlsLence of Lhe condlLlon soughL Lo be proved from
whlch bellef Lhe exlsLence of Lhe condlLlon may be lnferred 1hls sequence ls arguably ln effecL
an asserLlon of Lhe exlsLence of Lhe condlLlon and hence properly lncludable wlLhln Lhe hearsay
concepL See Morgan Pearsay uangers and Lhe AppllcaLlon of Lhe Pearsay ConcepL 62 ParvL
8ev 177 214 217 (1948) and Lhe elaboraLlon ln llnman lmplled AsserLlons as Pearsay Some
CrlLlclsms of Lhe unlform 8ules of Lvldence 14 SLanL8ev 682 (1962) AdmlLLedly evldence of
Lhls characLer ls unLesLed wlLh respecL Lo Lhe percepLlon memory and narraLlon (or Lhelr
equlvalenLs) of Lhe acLor buL Lhe Advlsory CommlLLee ls of Lhe vlew LhaL Lhese dangers are
mlnlmal ln Lhe absence of an lnLenL Lo asserL and do noL [usLlfy Lhe loss of Lhe evldence on
hearsay grounds no class of evldence ls free of Lhe posslblllLy of fabrlcaLlon buL Lhe llkellhood
ls less wlLh nonverbal Lhan wlLh asserLlve verbal conducL 1he slLuaLlons glvlng rlse Lo Lhe
nonverbal conducL are such as vlrLually Lo ellmlnaLe quesLlons of slncerlLy MoLlvaLlon Lhe
naLure of Lhe conducL and Lhe presence or absence of rellance wlll bear heavlly upon Lhe
welghL Lo be glven Lhe evldence lalknor 1he PearSay 8ule as a Seeuo 8ule Lvldence of
ConducL 33 8ocky MLL8ev 133 (1961) Slmllar conslderaLlons govern nonasserLlve verbal
conducL and verbal conducL whlch ls asserLlve buL offered as a basls for lnferrlng someLhlng
oLher Lhan Lhe maLLer asserLed also excluded from Lhe deflnlLlon of hearsay by Lhe language of
subdlvlslon (c)

When evldence of conducL ls offered on Lhe Lheory LhaL lL ls noL a sLaLemenL and hence noL
hearsay a prellmlnary deLermlnaLlon wlll be requlred Lo deLermlne wheLher an asserLlon ls
lnLended 1he rule ls so worded as Lo place Lhe burden upon Lhe parLy clalmlng LhaL Lhe
lnLenLlon exlsLed amblguous and doubLful cases wlll be resolved agalnsL hlm and ln favor of
admlsslblllLy 1he deLermlnaLlon lnvolves no greaLer dlfflculLy Lhan many oLher prellmlnary
quesLlons of facL Magulre 1he Pearsay SysLem Around and 1hrough Lhe 1hlckeL 14
vandL8ev 741 763767 (1961)

lor slmllar approaches see unlform 8ule 62(1) Callfornla Lvldence Code 223 1200 kansas
Code of Clvll rocedure 60439(a) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 62(1)

Subdlvlslon (c)

1he deflnlLlon follows along famlllar llnes ln lncludlng only sLaLemenLs offered Lo prove Lhe
LruLh of Lhe maLLer asserLed McCormlck 223 3 Wlgmore 1361 6 ld 1766 lf Lhe
slgnlflcance of an offered sLaLemenL lles solely ln Lhe facL LhaL lL was made no lssue ls ralsed as
Lo Lhe LruLh of anyLhlng asserLed and Lhe sLaLemenL ls noL hearsay Lmlch MoLors Corp v
Ceneral MoLors Corp 181 l2d 70 (7Lh Clr 1930) revd on oLher grounds 340 uS 338 71 SCL
408 93 LLd 334 leLLers of complalnL from cusLomers offered as a reason for cancellaLlon of
dealers franchlse Lo rebuL conLenLlon LhaL franchlse was revoked for refusal Lo flnance sales
Lhrough afflllaLed flnance company 1he effecL ls Lo exclude from hearsay Lhe enLlre caLegory of
verbal acLs and verbal parLs of an acL ln whlch Lhe sLaLemenL lLself affecLs Lhe legal rlghLs of
Lhe parLles or ls a clrcumsLance bearlng on conducL affecLlng Lhelr rlghLs

1he deflnlLlon of hearsay musL of course be read wlLh reference Lo Lhe deflnlLlon of sLaLemenL
seL forLh ln subdlvlslon (a)

1esLlmony glven by a wlLness ln Lhe course of courL proceedlngs ls excluded slnce Lhere ls
compllance wlLh all Lhe ldeal condlLlons for LesLlfylng

Subdlvlslon (d)

Several Lypes of sLaLemenLs whlch would oLherwlse llLerally fall wlLhln Lhe deflnlLlon are
expressly excluded from lL

(1) rlor sLaLemenL by wlLness Conslderable conLroversy has aLLended Lhe quesLlon wheLher a
prlor ouLofcourL sLaLemenL by a person now avallable for crossexamlnaLlon concernlng lL
under oaLh and ln Lhe presence of Lhe Lrler of facL should be classed as hearsay lf Lhe wlLness
admlLs on Lhe sLand LhaL he made Lhe sLaLemenL and LhaL lL was Lrue he adopLs Lhe sLaLemenL
and Lhere ls no hearsay problem 1he hearsay problem arlses when Lhe wlLness on Lhe sLand
denles havlng made Lhe sLaLemenL or admlLs havlng made lL buL denles lLs LruLh 1he argumenL
ln favor of LreaLlng Lhese laLLer sLaLemenLs as hearsay ls based upon Lhe ground LhaL Lhe
condlLlons of oaLh crossexamlnaLlon and demeanor observaLlon dld noL prevall aL Lhe Llme
Lhe sLaLemenL was made and cannoL adequaLely be supplled by Lhe laLer examlnaLlon 1he loglc
of Lhe slLuaLlon ls Lroublesome So far as concerns Lhe oaLh lLs mere presence has never been
regarded as sufflclenL Lo remove a sLaLemenL from Lhe hearsay caLegory and lL recelves much
less emphasls Lhan crossexamlnaLlon as a LruLhcompelllng devlce Whlle sLrong expresslons
are found Lo Lhe effecL LhaL no convlcLlon can be had or lmporLanL rlghL Laken away on Lhe
basls of sLaLemenLs noL made under fear of prosecuLlon for per[ury 8rldges v Wlxon 326 uS
133 63 SCL 1443 89 LLd 2103 (1943) Lhe facL ls LhaL of Lhe many common law excepLlons Lo
Lhe hearsay rule only LhaL for reporLed LesLlmony has requlred Lhe sLaLemenL Lo have been
made under oaLh nor ls lL saLlsfacLorlly explalned why crossexamlnaLlon cannoL be conducLed
subsequenLly wlLh success 1he declslons conLendlng mosL vlgorously for lLs lnadequacy ln facL
demonsLraLe qulLe Lhorough exploraLlon of Lhe weaknesses and doubLs aLLendlng Lhe earller
sLaLemenL SLaLe v Saporen 203 Mlnn 338 283 nW 898 (1939) 8uhala v 8oby 379 Mlch
102 130 nW2d 146 (1967) eople v !ohnson 68 Cal2d 646 68 Cal8pLr 399 441 2d 111
(1968) ln respecL Lo demeanor as !udge Learned Pand observed ln ulCarlo v unlLed SLaLes 6
l2d 364 (2d Clr 1923) when Lhe [ury decldes LhaL Lhe LruLh ls noL whaL Lhe wlLness says now
buL whaL he sald before Lhey are sLlll decldlng from whaL Lhey see and hear ln courL 1he bulk
of Lhe case law neverLheless has been agalnsL allowlng prlor sLaLemenLs of wlLnesses Lo be used
generally as subsLanLlve evldence MosL of Lhe wrlLers and unlform 8ule 63(1) have Laken Lhe
opposlLe poslLlon

1he poslLlon Laken by Lhe Advlsory CommlLLee ln formulaLlng Lhls parL of Lhe rule ls founded
upon an unwllllngness Lo counLenance Lhe general use of prlor prepared sLaLemenLs as
subsLanLlve evldence buL wlLh a recognlLlon LhaL parLlcular clrcumsLances call for a conLrary
resulL 1he [udgmenL ls one more of experlence Lhan of loglc 1he rule requlres ln each lnsLance
as a general safeguard LhaL Lhe declaranL acLually LesLlfy as a wlLness and lL Lhen enumeraLes
Lhree slLuaLlons ln whlch Lhe sLaLemenL ls excepLed from Lhe caLegory of hearsay Compare
unlform 8ule 63(1) whlch allows any ouLofcourL sLaLemenL of a declaranL who ls presenL aL
Lhe Lrlal and avallable for crossexamlnaLlon

(A) rlor lnconslsLenL sLaLemenLs LradlLlonally have been admlsslble Lo lmpeach buL noL as
subsLanLlve evldence under Lhe rule Lhey are subsLanLlve evldence As has been sald by Lhe
Callfornla Law 8evlslon Commlsslon wlLh respecL Lo a slmllar provlslon


SecLlon 1233 admlLs lnconslsLenL sLaLemenLs of wlLnesses because Lhe dangers agalnsL whlch
Lhe hearsay rule ls deslgned Lo proLecL are largely nonexlsLenL 1he declaranL ls ln courL and
may be examlned and crossexamlned ln regard Lo hls sLaLemenLs and Lhelr sub[ecL maLLer ln
many cases Lhe lnconslsLenL sLaLemenL ls more llkely Lo be Lrue Lhan Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe
wlLness aL Lhe Lrlal because lL was made nearer ln Llme Lo Lhe maLLer Lo whlch lL relaLes and ls
less llkely Lo be lnfluenced by Lhe conLroversy LhaL gave rlse Lo Lhe llLlgaLlon 1he Lrler of facL
has Lhe declaranL before lL and can observe hls demeanor and Lhe naLure of hls LesLlmony as he
denles or Lrles Lo explaln away Lhe lnconslsLency Pence lL ls ln as good a poslLlon Lo deLermlne
Lhe LruLh or falslLy of Lhe prlor sLaLemenL as lL ls Lo deLermlne Lhe LruLh or falslLy of Lhe
lnconslsLenL LesLlmony glven ln courL Moreover SecLlon 1233 wlll provlde a parLy wlLh
deslrable proLecLlon agalnsL Lhe LurncoaL wlLness who changes hls sLory on Lhe sLand and
deprlves Lhe parLy calllng hlm of evldence essenLlal Lo hls case

CommenL Callfornla Lvldence Code 1233 See also McCormlck 39 1he Advlsory CommlLLee
flnds Lhese vlews more convlnclng Lhan Lhose expressed ln eople v !ohnson 68 Cal2d 646 68
Cal8pLr 399 441 2d 111 (1968) 1he consLlLuLlonallLy of Lhe Advlsory CommlLLees vlew was
upheld ln Callfornla v Creen 399 uS 149 90 SCL 1930 26 LLd2d 489 (1970) Moreover Lhe
requlremenL LhaL Lhe sLaLemenL be lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe LesLlmony glven assures a Lhorough
exploraLlon of boLh verslons whlle Lhe wlLness ls on Lhe sLand and bars any general and
lndlscrlmlnaLe use of prevlously prepared sLaLemenLs

(8) rlor conslsLenL sLaLemenLs LradlLlonally have been admlsslble Lo rebuL charges of recenL
fabrlcaLlon or lmproper lnfluence or moLlve buL noL as subsLanLlve evldence under Lhe rule
Lhey are subsLanLlve evldence 1he prlor sLaLemenL ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe LesLlmony glven on
Lhe sLand and lf Lhe opposlLe parLy wlshes Lo open Lhe door for lLs admlsslon ln evldence no
sound reason ls apparenL why lL should noL be recelved generally

(C) 1he admlsslon of evldence of ldenLlflcaLlon flnds subsLanLlal supporL alLhough lL falls
beyond a doubL ln Lhe caLegory of prlor ouLofcourL sLaLemenLs lllusLraLlve are eople v
Could 34 Cal2d 621 7 Cal8pLr 273 334 2d 863 (1960) !udy v SLaLe 218 Md 168 146 A2d
29 (1938) SLaLe v Slmmons 63 Wash2d 17 383 2d 389 (1963) Callfornla Lvldence Code
1238 new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(1)(c) n? Code of Crlmlnal rocedure 393b lurLher
cases are found ln 4 Wlgmore 1130 1he basls ls Lhe generally unsaLlsfacLory and lnconcluslve
naLure of courLroom ldenLlflcaLlons as compared wlLh Lhose made aL an earller Llme under less
suggesLlve condlLlons 1he Supreme CourL consldered Lhe admlsslblllLy of evldence of prlor
ldenLlflcaLlon ln CllberL v Callfornla 388 uS 263 87 SCL 1931 18 LLd2d 1178 (1967)
Lxcluslon of llneup ldenLlflcaLlon was held Lo be requlred because Lhe accused dld noL Lhen
have Lhe asslsLance of counsel SlgnlflcanLly Lhe CourL carefully refralned from placlng lLs
declslon on Lhe ground LhaL LesLlmony as Lo Lhe maklng of a prlor ouLofcourL ldenLlflcaLlon
(1haLs Lhe man) vlolaLed elLher Lhe hearsay rule or Lhe rlghL of confronLaLlon because noL
made under oaLh sub[ecL Lo lmmedlaLe crossexamlnaLlon ln Lhe presence of Lhe Lrler lnsLead
Lhe CourL observed

1here ls a spllL among Lhe SLaLes concernlng Lhe admlsslblllLy of prlor exLra[udlclal
ldenLlflcaLlons as lndependenL evldence of ldenLlLy boLh by Lhe wlLness and Lhlrd parLles
presenL aL Lhe prlor ldenLlflcaLlon See 71 AL82d 449 lL has been held LhaL Lhe prlor
ldenLlflcaLlon ls hearsay and when admlLLed Lhrough Lhe LesLlmony of Lhe ldenLlfler ls merely
a prlor conslsLenL sLaLemenL 1he recenL Lrend however ls Lo admlL Lhe prlor ldenLlflcaLlon
under Lhe excepLlon LhaL admlLs as subsLanLlve evldence a prlor communlcaLlon by a wlLness
who ls avallable for crossexamlnaLlon aL Lhe Lrlal See 3 AL82d LaLer Case Servlce 12231228


388 uS aL 272 n 3 87 SCL aL 1936

(2) Admlsslons Admlsslons by a parLyopponenL are excluded from Lhe caLegory of hearsay on
Lhe Lheory LhaL Lhelr admlsslblllLy ln evldence ls Lhe resulL of Lhe adversary sysLem raLher Lhan
saLlsfacLlon of Lhe condlLlons of Lhe hearsay rule SLrahorn A 8econslderaLlon of Lhe Pearsay
8ule and Admlsslons 83 uaL8ev 484 364 (1937) Morgan 8aslc roblems of Lvldence 263
(1962) 4 Wlgmore 1048 no guaranLee of LrusLworLhlness ls requlred ln Lhe case of an
admlsslon 1he freedom whlch admlsslons have en[oyed from Lechnlcal demands of searchlng
for an assurance of LrusLworLhlness ln some agalnsLlnLeresL clrcumsLance and from Lhe
resLrlcLlve lnfluences of Lhe oplnlon rule and Lhe rule requlrlng flrsLhand knowledge when
Laken wlLh Lhe apparenLly prevalenL saLlsfacLlon wlLh Lhe resulLs calls for generous LreaLmenL
of Lhls avenue Lo admlsslblllLy

1he rule speclfles flve caLegorles of sLaLemenLs for whlch Lhe responslblllLy of a parLy ls
consldered sufflclenL Lo [usLlfy recepLlon ln evldence agalnsL hlm

(A) A parLys own sLaLemenL ls Lhe classlc example of an admlsslon lf he has a represenLaLlve
capaclLy and Lhe sLaLemenL ls offered agalnsL hlm ln LhaL capaclLy no lnqulry wheLher he was
acLlng ln Lhe represenLaLlve capaclLy ln maklng Lhe sLaLemenL ls requlred Lhe sLaLemenL need
only be relevanL Lo represenL affalrs 1o Lhe same effecL ln Callfornla Lvldence Code 1220
Compare unlform 8ule 63(7) requlrlng a sLaLemenL Lo be made ln a represenLaLlve capaclLy Lo
be admlsslble agalnsL a parLy ln a represenLaLlve capaclLy

(8) under esLabllshed prlnclples an admlsslon may be made by adopLlng or acqulesclng ln Lhe
sLaLemenL of anoLher Whlle knowledge of conLenLs would ordlnarlly be essenLlal Lhls ls noL
lnevlLably so x ls a rellable person and knows whaL he ls Lalklng abouL See McCormlck 246
p 327 n 13 AdopLlon or acqulescence may be manlfesLed ln any approprlaLe manner When
sllence ls relled upon Lhe Lheory ls LhaL Lhe person would under Lhe clrcumsLances proLesL Lhe
sLaLemenL made ln hls presence lf unLrue 1he declslon ln each case calls for an evaluaLlon ln
Lerms of probable human behavlor ln clvll cases Lhe resulLs have generally been saLlsfacLory
ln crlmlnal cases however Lroublesome quesLlons have been ralsed by declslons holdlng LhaL
fallure Lo deny ls an admlsslon Lhe lnference ls a falrly weak one Lo begln wlLh sllence may be
moLlvaLed by advlce of counsel or reallzaLlon LhaL anyLhlng you say may be used agalnsL you
unusual opporLunlLy ls afforded Lo manufacLure evldence and encroachmenL upon Lhe
prlvllege agalnsL selflncrlmlnaLlon seems lnescapably Lo be lnvolved Powever recenL declslons
of Lhe Supreme CourL relaLlng Lo cusLodlal lnLerrogaLlon and Lhe rlghL Lo counsel appear Lo
resolve Lhese dlfflculLles Pence Lhe rule conLalns no speclal provlslons concernlng fallure Lo
deny ln crlmlnal cases

(C) no auLhorlLy ls requlred for Lhe general proposlLlon LhaL a sLaLemenL auLhorlzed by a parLy
Lo be made should have Lhe sLaLus of an admlsslon by Lhe parLy Powever Lhe quesLlon arlses
wheLher only sLaLemenLs Lo Lhlrd persons should be so regarded Lo Lhe excluslon of sLaLemenLs
by Lhe agenL Lo Lhe prlnclpal 1he rule ls phrased broadly so as Lo encompass boLh Whlle lL may
be argued LhaL Lhe agenL auLhorlzed Lo make sLaLemenLs Lo hls prlnclpal does noL speak for
hlm Morgan 8aslc roblems of Lvldence 273 (1962) communlcaLlon Lo an ouLslder has noL
generally been LhoughL Lo be an essenLlal characLerlsLlc of an admlsslon 1hus a parLys books or
records are usable agalnsL hlm wlLhouL regard Lo any lnLenL Lo dlsclose Lo Lhlrd persons 3
Wlgmore 1337 See also McCormlck 78 pp 139161 ln accord ls new !ersey Lvldence 8ule
63(8)(a) Cf unlform 8ule 63(8)(a) and Callfornla Lvldence Code 1222 whlch llmlL sLaLus as an
admlsslon ln Lhls regard Lo sLaLemenLs auLhorlzed by Lhe parLy Lo be made for hlm whlch ls
perhaps an amblguous llmlLaLlon Lo sLaLemenLs Lo Lhlrd persons lalknor vlcarlous Admlsslons
and Lhe unlform 8ules 14 vandL8ev 833 860861 (1961)

(u) 1he LradlLlon has been Lo LesL Lhe admlsslblllLy of sLaLemenLs by agenLs as admlsslons by
applylng Lhe usual LesL of agency Was Lhe admlsslon made by Lhe agenL acLlng ln Lhe scope of
hls employmenL? Slnce few prlnclpals employ agenLs for Lhe purpose of maklng damaglng
sLaLemenLs Lhe usual resulL was excluslon of Lhe sLaLemenL ulssaLlsfacLlon wlLh Lhls loss of
valuable and helpful evldence has been lncreaslng A subsLanLlal Lrend favors admlLLlng
sLaLemenLs relaLed Lo a maLLer wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhe agency or employmenL Crayson v
Wllllams 236 l2d 61 (10Lh Clr 1938) konlnkll[ke LuchLvaarL MaaLschappl[ nv kLM 8oyal
uuLch Alrllnes v 1uller 110 uSAppuC 282 292 l2d 773 784 (1961) MarLln v Savage 1ruck
Llnes lnc 121 lSupp 417 (uuC 1034) and numerous sLaLe courL declslons collecLed ln 4
Wlgmore 1964 Supp pp 6673 wlLh commenLs by Lhe edlLor LhaL Lhe sLaLemenLs should have
been excluded as noL wlLhln scope of agency lor Lhe LradlLlonal vlew see norLhern Cll Co v
Socony Moblle Cll Co 347 l2d 81 83 (2d Clr 1963) and cases clLed Lhereln Slmllar provlslons
are found ln unlform 8ule 63(9)(a) kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(l)(1) and new
!ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(9)(a)

(L) 1he llmlLaLlon upon Lhe admlsslblllLy of sLaLemenLs of coconsplraLors Lo Lhose made durlng
Lhe course and ln furLherance of Lhe consplracy ls ln Lhe accepLed paLLern Whlle Lhe
broadened vlew of agency Laken ln lLem (lv) mlghL suggesL wlder admlsslblllLy of sLaLemenLs of
coconsplraLors Lhe agency Lheory of consplracy ls aL besL a flcLlon and oughL noL Lo serve as a
basls for admlsslblllLy beyond LhaL already esLabllshed See Levle Pearsay and Consplracy 32
MlchL8ev 1139 (1934) CommenL 23 uChlL8ev 330 (1938) 1he rule ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe
poslLlon of Lhe Supreme CourL ln denylng admlsslblllLy Lo sLaLemenLs made afLer Lhe ob[ecLlves
of Lhe consplracy have elLher falled or been achleved krulewlLch v unlLed SLaLes 336 uS 440
69 SCL 716 93 LLd 790 (1949) Wong Sun v unlLed SLaLes 371 uS 471 490 83 SCL 407 9
LLd2d 441 (1963) lor slmllarly llmlLed provlslons see Callfornla Lvldence Code 1223 and
new !ersey 8ule 63(9)(b) Cf unlform 8ule 63(9)(b)

8ule 802 Pearsay 8ule

Pearsay ls noL admlsslble excepL as provlded by Lhese rules or by oLher rules prescrlbed by Lhe
Supreme CourL pursuanL Lo sLaLuLory auLhorlLy or by AcL of Congress

noLes

8ule 803 Pearsay LxcepLlons AvallablllLy of ueclaranL lmmaLerlal

1he followlng are noL excluded by Lhe hearsay rule even Lhough Lhe declaranL ls avallable as a
wlLness

(1) resenL sense lmpresslon A sLaLemenL descrlblng or explalnlng an evenL or condlLlon made
whlle Lhe declaranL was percelvlng Lhe evenL or condlLlon or lmmedlaLely LhereafLer
(2) LxclLed uLLerance A sLaLemenL relaLlng Lo a sLarLllng evenL or condlLlon made whlle Lhe
declaranL was under Lhe sLress of exclLemenL caused by Lhe evenL or condlLlon
(3) 1hen exlsLlng menLal emoLlonal or physlcal condlLlon A sLaLemenL of Lhe declaranLs Lhen
exlsLlng sLaLe of mlnd emoLlon sensaLlon or physlcal condlLlon (such as lnLenL plan moLlve
deslgn menLal feellng paln and bodlly healLh) buL noL lncludlng a sLaLemenL of memory or
bellef Lo prove Lhe facL remembered or belleved unless lL relaLes Lo Lhe execuLlon revocaLlon
ldenLlflcaLlon or Lerms of declaranLs wlll
(4) SLaLemenLs for purposes of medlcal dlagnosls or LreaLmenL SLaLemenLs made for purposes
of medlcal dlagnosls or LreaLmenL and descrlblng medlcal hlsLory or pasL or presenL sympLoms
paln or sensaLlons or Lhe lncepLlon or general characLer of Lhe cause or exLernal source
Lhereof lnsofar as reasonably perLlnenL Lo dlagnosls or LreaLmenL
(3) 8ecorded recollecLlon A memorandum or record concernlng a maLLer abouL whlch a
wlLness once had knowledge buL now has lnsufflclenL recollecLlon Lo enable Lhe wlLness Lo
LesLlfy fully and accuraLely shown Lo have been made or adopLed by Lhe wlLness when Lhe
maLLer was fresh ln Lhe wlLness memory and Lo reflecL LhaL knowledge correcLly lf admlLLed
Lhe memorandum or record may be read lnLo evldence buL may noL lLself be recelved as an
exhlblL unless offered by an adverse parLy
(6) 8ecords of regularly conducLed acLlvlLy A memorandum reporL record or daLa
compllaLlon ln any form of acLs evenLs condlLlons oplnlons or dlagnoses made aL or near
Lhe Llme by or from lnformaLlon LransmlLLed by a person wlLh knowledge lf kepL ln Lhe course
of a regularly conducLed buslness acLlvlLy and lf lL was Lhe regular pracLlce of LhaL buslness
acLlvlLy Lo make Lhe memorandum reporL record or daLa compllaLlon all as shown by Lhe
LesLlmony of Lhe cusLodlan or oLher quallfled wlLness or by cerLlflcaLlon LhaL complles wlLh
8ule 902(11) 8ule 902(12) or a sLaLuLe permlLLlng cerLlflcaLlon unless Lhe source of
lnformaLlon or Lhe meLhod or clrcumsLances of preparaLlon lndlcaLe lack of LrusLworLhlness
1he Lerm buslness as used ln Lhls paragraph lncludes buslness lnsLlLuLlon assoclaLlon
professlon occupaLlon and calllng of every klnd wheLher or noL conducLed for proflL
(7) Absence of enLry ln records kepL ln accordance wlLh Lhe provlslons of paragraph (6)
Lvldence LhaL a maLLer ls noL lncluded ln Lhe memoranda reporLs records or daLa
compllaLlons ln any form kepL ln accordance wlLh Lhe provlslons of paragraph (6) Lo prove Lhe
nonoccurrence or nonexlsLence of Lhe maLLer lf Lhe maLLer was of a klnd of whlch a
memorandum reporL record or daLa compllaLlon was regularly made and preserved unless
Lhe sources of lnformaLlon or oLher clrcumsLances lndlcaLe lack of LrusLworLhlness
(8) ubllc records and reporLs 8ecords reporLs sLaLemenLs or daLa compllaLlons ln any form
of publlc offlces or agencles seLLlng forLh (A) Lhe acLlvlLles of Lhe offlce or agency or (8)
maLLers observed pursuanL Lo duLy lmposed by law as Lo whlch maLLers Lhere was a duLy Lo
reporL excludlng however ln crlmlnal cases maLLers observed by pollce offlcers and oLher law
enforcemenL personnel or (C) ln clvll acLlons and proceedlngs and agalnsL Lhe CovernmenL ln
crlmlnal cases facLual flndlngs resulLlng from an lnvesLlgaLlon made pursuanL Lo auLhorlLy
granLed by law unless Lhe sources of lnformaLlon or oLher clrcumsLances lndlcaLe lack of
LrusLworLhlness
(9) 8ecords of vlLal sLaLlsLlcs 8ecords or daLa compllaLlons ln any form of blrLhs feLal deaLhs
deaLhs or marrlages lf Lhe reporL Lhereof was made Lo a publlc offlce pursuanL Lo
requlremenLs of law
(10) Absence of publlc record or enLry 1o prove Lhe absence of a record reporL sLaLemenL or
daLa compllaLlon ln any form or Lhe nonoccurrence or nonexlsLence of a maLLer of whlch a
record reporL sLaLemenL or daLa compllaLlon ln any form was regularly made and preserved
by a publlc offlce or agency evldence ln Lhe form of a cerLlflcaLlon ln accordance wlLh rule 902
or LesLlmony LhaL dlllgenL search falled Lo dlsclose Lhe record reporL sLaLemenL or daLa
compllaLlon or enLry
(11) 8ecords of rellglous organlzaLlons SLaLemenLs of blrLhs marrlages dlvorces deaLhs
leglLlmacy ancesLry relaLlonshlp by blood or marrlage or oLher slmllar facLs of personal or
famlly hlsLory conLalned ln a regularly kepL record of a rellglous organlzaLlon
(12) Marrlage bapLlsmal and slmllar cerLlflcaLes SLaLemenLs of facL conLalned ln a cerLlflcaLe
LhaL Lhe maker performed a marrlage or oLher ceremony or admlnlsLered a sacramenL made
by a clergyman publlc offlclal or oLher person auLhorlzed by Lhe rules or pracLlces of a rellglous
organlzaLlon or by law Lo perform Lhe acL cerLlfled and purporLlng Lo have been lssued aL Lhe
Llme of Lhe acL or wlLhln a reasonable Llme LhereafLer
(13) lamlly records SLaLemenLs of facL concernlng personal or famlly hlsLory conLalned ln
famlly 8lbles genealogles charLs engravlngs on rlngs lnscrlpLlons on famlly porLralLs
engravlngs on urns crypLs or LombsLones or Lhe llke
(14) 8ecords of documenLs affecLlng an lnLeresL ln properLy 1he record of a documenL
purporLlng Lo esLabllsh or affecL an lnLeresL ln properLy as proof of Lhe conLenL of Lhe orlglnal
recorded documenL and lLs execuLlon and dellvery by each person by whom lL purporLs Lo have
been execuLed lf Lhe record ls a record of a publlc offlce and an appllcable sLaLuLe auLhorlzes
Lhe recordlng of documenLs of LhaL klnd ln LhaL offlce
(13) SLaLemenLs ln documenLs affecLlng an lnLeresL ln properLy A sLaLemenL conLalned ln a
documenL purporLlng Lo esLabllsh or affecL an lnLeresL ln properLy lf Lhe maLLer sLaLed was
relevanL Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe documenL unless deallngs wlLh Lhe properLy slnce Lhe documenL
was made have been lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe LruLh of Lhe sLaLemenL or Lhe purporL of Lhe
documenL
(16) SLaLemenLs ln anclenL documenLs SLaLemenLs ln a documenL ln exlsLence LwenLy years or
more Lhe auLhenLlclLy of whlch ls esLabllshed
(17) MarkeL reporLs commerclal publlcaLlons MarkeL quoLaLlons LabulaLlons llsLs dlrecLorles
or oLher publlshed compllaLlons generally used and relled upon by Lhe publlc or by persons ln
parLlcular occupaLlons
(18) Learned LreaLlses 1o Lhe exLenL called Lo Lhe aLLenLlon of an experL wlLness upon cross
examlnaLlon or relled upon by Lhe experL wlLness ln dlrecL examlnaLlon sLaLemenLs conLalned
ln publlshed LreaLlses perlodlcals or pamphleLs on a sub[ecL of hlsLory medlclne or oLher
sclence or arL esLabllshed as a rellable auLhorlLy by Lhe LesLlmony or admlsslon of Lhe wlLness
or by oLher experL LesLlmony or by [udlclal noLlce lf admlLLed Lhe sLaLemenLs may be read lnLo
evldence buL may noL be recelved as exhlblLs
(19) 8epuLaLlon concernlng personal or famlly hlsLory 8epuLaLlon among members of a
persons famlly by blood adopLlon or marrlage or among a persons assoclaLes or ln Lhe
communlLy concernlng a persons blrLh adopLlon marrlage dlvorce deaLh leglLlmacy
relaLlonshlp by blood adopLlon or marrlage ancesLry or oLher slmllar facL of personal or
famlly hlsLory
(20) 8epuLaLlon concernlng boundarles or general hlsLory 8epuLaLlon ln a communlLy arlslng
before Lhe conLroversy as Lo boundarles of or cusLoms affecLlng lands ln Lhe communlLy and
repuLaLlon as Lo evenLs of general hlsLory lmporLanL Lo Lhe communlLy or SLaLe or naLlon ln
whlch locaLed
(21) 8epuLaLlon as Lo characLer 8epuLaLlon of a persons characLer among assoclaLes or ln Lhe
communlLy
(22) !udgmenL of prevlous convlcLlon Lvldence of a flnal [udgmenL enLered afLer a Lrlal or upon
a plea of gullLy (buL noL upon a plea of nolo conLendere) ad[udglng a person gullLy of a crlme
punlshable by deaLh or lmprlsonmenL ln excess of one year Lo prove any facL essenLlal Lo
susLaln Lhe [udgmenL buL noL lncludlng when offered by Lhe CovernmenL ln a crlmlnal
prosecuLlon for purposes oLher Lhan lmpeachmenL [udgmenLs agalnsL persons oLher Lhan Lhe
accused 1he pendency of an appeal may be shown buL does noL affecL admlsslblllLy
(23) !udgmenL as Lo personal famlly or general hlsLory or boundarles !udgmenLs as proof of
maLLers of personal famlly or general hlsLory or boundarles essenLlal Lo Lhe [udgmenL lf Lhe
same would be provable by evldence of repuLaLlon
(24) CLher excepLlons1ransferred Lo 8ule 807
803 nC1LS
noLes of Advlsory CommlLLee on 8ules

1he excepLlons are phrased ln Lerms of nonappllcaLlon of Lhe hearsay rule raLher Lhan ln
poslLlve Lerms of admlsslblllLy ln order Lo repel any lmpllcaLlon LhaL oLher posslble grounds for
excluslon are ellmlnaLed from conslderaLlon

1he presenL rule proceeds upon Lhe Lheory LhaL under approprlaLe clrcumsLances a hearsay
sLaLemenL may possess clrcumsLanLlal guaranLees of LrusLworLhlness sufflclenL Lo [usLlfy
nonproducLlon of Lhe declaranL ln person aL Lhe Lrlal even Lhough he may be avallable 1he
Lheory flnds vasL supporL ln Lhe many excepLlons Lo Lhe hearsay rule developed by Lhe common
law ln whlch unavallablllLy of Lhe declaranL ls noL a relevanL facLor 1he presenL rule ls a
synLhesls of Lhem wlLh revlslon where modern developmenLs and condlLlons are belleved Lo
make LhaL course approprlaLe

ln a hearsay slLuaLlon Lhe declaranL ls of course a wlLness and nelLher Lhls rule nor 8ule 804
dlspenses wlLh Lhe requlremenL of flrsLhand knowledge lL may appear from hls sLaLemenL or
be lnferable from clrcumsLances

See 8ule 602

LxcepLlons (1) and (2) ln conslderable measure Lhese Lwo examples overlap Lhough based on
somewhaL dlfferenL Lheorles 1he mosL slgnlflcanL pracLlcal dlfference wlll lle ln Lhe Llme lapse
allowable beLween evenL and sLaLemenL

1he underlylng Lheory of LxcepLlon paragraph (1) ls LhaL subsLanLlal conLemporanelLy of evenL
and sLaLemenL negaLlve Lhe llkellhood of dellberaLe of consclous mlsrepresenLaLlon Moreover
lf Lhe wlLness ls Lhe declaranL he may be examlned on Lhe sLaLemenL lf Lhe wlLness ls noL Lhe
declaranL he may be examlned as Lo Lhe clrcumsLances as an ald ln evaluaLlng Lhe sLaLemenL
Morgan 8aslc roblems of Lvldence 340341 (1962)

1he Lheory of LxcepLlon paragraph (2) ls slmply LhaL clrcumsLances may produce a condlLlon
of exclLemenL whlch Lemporarlly sLllls Lhe capaclLy of reflecLlon and produces uLLerances free of
consclous fabrlcaLlon 6 Wlgmore 1747 p 133 SponLanelLy ls Lhe key facLor ln each lnsLance
Lhough arrlved aL by somewhaL dlfferenL rouLes 8oLh are needed ln order Lo avold needless
nlggllng

Whlle Lhe Lheory of LxcepLlon paragraph (2) has been crlLlclzed on Lhe ground LhaL exclLemenL
lmpalrs accuracy of observaLlon as well as ellmlnaLlng consclous fabrlcaLlon PuLchlns and
Sleslnger Some CbservaLlons on Lhe Law of Lvldence SponLaneous LxclamaLlons 28
ColumL8ev 432 (1928) lL flnds supporL ln cases wlLhouL number See cases ln 6 Wlgmore
1730 AnnoL 33 AL82d 1243 (sLaLemenLs as Lo cause of or responslblllLy for moLor vehlcle
accldenL) AnnoL 4 AL83d 149 (accusaLory sLaLemenLs by homlclde vlcLlms) Slnce unexclLlng
evenLs are less llkely Lo evoke commenL declslons lnvolvlng LxcepLlon paragraph (1) are far
less numerous lllusLraLlve are 1ampa Llec Co v CeLrosL 131 lla 338 10 So2d 83 (1942)
PousLon Cxygen Co v uavls 139 1ex 1 161 SW2d 474 (1942) and cases clLed ln McCormlck
273 p 383 n 4

WlLh respecL Lo Lhe Llme elemenL LxcepLlon paragraph (1) recognlzes LhaL ln many lf noL
mosL lnsLances preclse conLemporanelLy ls noL posslble and hence a sllghL lapse ls allowable
under LxcepLlon paragraph (2) Lhe sLandard of measuremenL ls Lhe duraLlon of Lhe sLaLe of
exclLemenL Pow long can exclLemenL prevall? Cbvlously Lhere are no paL answers and Lhe
characLer of Lhe LransacLlon or evenL wlll largely deLermlne Lhe slgnlflcance of Lhe Llme facLor
Slough SponLaneous SLaLemenLs and SLaLe of Mlnd 46 lowa L8ev 224 243 (1961) McCormlck
272 p 380

arLlclpaLlon by Lhe declaranL ls noL requlred a nonparLlclpanL may be moved Lo descrlbe whaL
he percelves and one may be sLarLled by an evenL ln whlch he ls noL an acLor Slough supra
McCormlck supra 6 Wlgmore 1733 AnnoL 78 AL82d 300

WheLher proof of Lhe sLarLllng evenL may be made by Lhe sLaLemenL lLself ls largely an
academlc quesLlon slnce ln mosL cases Lhere ls presenL aL leasL clrcumsLanLlal evldence LhaL
someLhlng of a sLarLllng naLure musL have occurred lor cases ln whlch Lhe evldence conslsLs of
Lhe condlLlon of Lhe declaranL (ln[urles sLaLe of shock) see lnsurance Co v Mosely 73 uS (8
Wall) 397 19 LLd 437 (1869) Wheeler v unlLed SLaLes 93 uSAApp uC 139 211 l2d 19
(1933) cerL denled 347 uS 1019 74 SCL 876 98 LLd 1140 WeLherbee v SafeLy CasualLy
Co 219 l2d 274 (3Lh Clr 1933) Lampe v unlLed SLaLes 97 uSAppuC 160 229 l2d 43
(1936) neverLheless on occaslon Lhe only evldence may be Lhe conLenL of Lhe sLaLemenL lLself
and rullngs LhaL lL may be sufflclenL are descrlbed as lncreaslng Slough supra aL 246 and as
Lhe prevalllng pracLlce McCormlck 272 p 379 lllusLraLlve are Armour Co v lndusLrlal
Commlsslon 78 Colo 369 243 346 (1926) ?oung v SLewarL 191 nC 297 131 SL 733
(1926) Moreover under 8ule 104(a) Lhe [udge ls noL llmlLed by Lhe hearsay rule ln passlng
upon prellmlnary quesLlons of facL

roof of declaranLs percepLlon by hls sLaLemenL presenLs slmllar conslderaLlons when
declaranL ls ldenLlfled eople v oland 22 lll2d 173 174 nL2d 804 (1961) Powever when
declaranL ls an unldenLlfled bysLander Lhe cases lndlcaLe heslLancy ln upholdlng Lhe sLaLemenL
alone as sufflclenL CarreLL v Powden 73 nM 307 387 2d 874 (1963) 8eck v uye 200
Wash 1 92 2d 1113 (1939) a resulL whlch would under approprlaLe clrcumsLances be
conslsLenL wlLh Lhe rule

ermlsslble sub[ecL maLLer of Lhe sLaLemenL ls llmlLed under LxcepLlon paragraph (1) Lo
descrlpLlon or explanaLlon of Lhe evenL or condlLlon Lhe assumpLlon belng LhaL sponLanelLy ln
Lhe absence of a sLarLllng evenL may exLend no farLher ln LxcepLlon paragraph (2) however
Lhe sLaLemenL need only relaLe Lo Lhe sLarLllng evenL or condlLlon Lhus affordlng a broader
scope of sub[ecL maLLer coverage 6 Wlgmore 1730 1734 See SanlLary Crocery Co v Snead
67 AppuC 129 90 l2d 374 (1937) sllpandfall case susLalnlng admlsslblllLy of clerks
sLaLemenL 1haL has been on Lhe floor for a couple of hours and Murphy AuLo arLs Co lnc
v 8all 101 uSAppuC 416 249 l2d 308 (1937) upholdlng admlsslon on lssue of drlvers
agency of hls sLaLemenL LhaL he had Lo call on a cusLomer and was ln a hurry Lo geL home
Culck Pearsay LxclLemenL necesslLy and Lhe unlform 8ules A 8eappralsal of 8ule 63(4) 6
Wayne L8ev 204 206209 (1960)

Slmllar provlslons are found ln unlform 8ule 63(4)(a) and (b) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1240
(as Lo LxcepLlon (2) only) kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(d)(1) and (2) new !ersey
Lvldence 8ule 63(4)

LxcepLlon (3) ls essenLlally a speclallzed appllcaLlon of LxcepLlon paragraph (1) presenLed
separaLely Lo enhance lLs usefulness and accesslblllLy See McCormlck 263 268

1he excluslon of sLaLemenLs of memory or bellef Lo prove Lhe facL remembered or belleved ls
necessary Lo avold Lhe vlrLual desLrucLlon of Lhe hearsay rule whlch would oLherwlse resulL
from allowlng sLaLe of mlnd provable by a hearsay sLaLemenL Lo serve as Lhe basls for an
lnference of Lhe happenlng of Lhe evenL whlch produced Lhe sLaLe of mlnd) Shepard v unlLed
SLaLes 290 uS 96 34 SCL 22 78 LLd 196 (1933) Magulre 1he Plllmon Case1hlrLyLhree
?ears AfLer 38 ParvL8ev 709 719731 (1923) PlnLon SLaLes of Mlnd and Lhe Pearsay 8ule 1
uChlL8ev 394 421423 (1934) 1he rule of MuLual Llfe lns Co v Plllman 143 uS 283 12
SCL 909 36 LLd 706 (1892) allowlng evldence of lnLenLlon as Lendlng Lo prove Lhe dolng of
Lhe acL lnLended ls of course lefL undlsLurbed

1he carvlng ouL from Lhe excluslon menLloned ln Lhe precedlng paragraph of declaraLlons
relaLlng Lo Lhe execuLlon revocaLlon ldenLlflcaLlon or Lerms of declaranLs wlll represenLs an
ad hoc [udgmenL whlch flnds ample relnforcemenL ln Lhe declslons resLlng on pracLlcal grounds
of necesslLy and expedlency raLher Lhan loglc McCormlck 271 pp 377378 AnnoL 34
AL82d 388 62 AL82d 833 A slmllar recognlLlon of Lhe need for and pracLlcal value of Lhls
klnd of evldence ls found ln Callfornla Lvldence Code 1260

LxcepLlon (4) Lven Lhose few [urlsdlcLlons whlch have shled away from generally admlLLlng
sLaLemenLs of presenL condlLlon have allowed Lhem lf made Lo a physlclan for purposes of
dlagnosls and LreaLmenL ln vlew of Lhe paLlenLs sLrong moLlvaLlon Lo be LruLhful McCormlck
266 p 363 1he same guaranLee of LrusLworLhlness exLends Lo sLaLemenLs of pasL condlLlons
and medlcal hlsLory made for purposes of dlagnosls or LreaLmenL lL also exLends Lo sLaLemenLs
as Lo causaLlon reasonably perLlnenL Lo Lhe same purposes ln accord wlLh Lhe currenL Lrend
Shell Cll Co v lndusLrlal Commlsslon 2 lll2d 390 119 nL2d 224 (1934) McCormlck 266 p
364 new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(12)(c) SLaLemenLs as Lo faulL would noL ordlnarlly quallfy
under Lhls laLLer language 1hus a paLlenLs sLaLemenL LhaL he was sLruck by an auLomoblle
would quallfy buL noL hls sLaLemenL LhaL Lhe car was drlven Lhrough a red llghL under Lhe
excepLlon Lhe sLaLemenL need noL have been made Lo a physlclan SLaLemenLs Lo hosplLal
aLLendanLs ambulance drlvers or even members of Lhe famlly mlghL be lncluded

ConvenLlonal docLrlne has excluded from Lhe hearsay excepLlon as noL wlLhln lLs guaranLee of
LruLhfulness sLaLemenLs Lo a physlclan consulLed only for Lhe purpose of enabllng hlm Lo
LesLlfy Whlle Lhese sLaLemenLs were noL admlsslble as subsLanLlve evldence Lhe experL was
allowed Lo sLaLe Lhe basls of hls oplnlon lncludlng sLaLemenLs of Lhls klnd 1he dlsLlncLlon Lhus
called for was one mosL unllkely Lo be made by [urles 1he rule accordlngly re[ecLs Lhe
llmlLaLlon 1hls poslLlon ls conslsLenL wlLh Lhe provlslon of 8ule 703 LhaL Lhe facLs on whlch
experL LesLlmony ls based need noL be admlsslble ln evldence lf of a klnd ordlnarlly relled upon
by experLs ln Lhe fleld

LxcepLlon (3) A hearsay excepLlon for recorded recollecLlon ls generally recognlzed and has
been descrlbed as havlng long been favored by Lhe federal and pracLlcally all Lhe sLaLe courLs
LhaL have had occaslon Lo declde Lhe quesLlon unlLed SLaLes v kelly 349 l2d 720 770 (2d
Clr 1963) clLlng numerous cases and susLalnlng Lhe excepLlon agalnsL a clalmed denlal of Lhe
rlghL of confronLaLlon Many addlLlonal cases are clLed ln AnnoL 82 AL82d 473 320 1he
guaranLee of LrusLworLhlness ls found ln Lhe rellablllLy lnherenL ln a record made whlle evenLs
were sLlll fresh ln mlnd and accuraLely reflecLlng Lhem Cwens v SLaLe 67 Md 307 316 10 A
210 212 (1887)

1he prlnclpal conLroversy aLLendlng Lhe excepLlon has cenLered noL upon Lhe proprleLy of Lhe
excepLlon lLself buL upon Lhe quesLlon wheLher a prellmlnary requlremenL of lmpalred memory
on Lhe parL of Lhe wlLness should be lmposed 1he auLhorlLles are dlvlded lf regard be had only
Lo Lhe accuracy of Lhe evldence admlLLedly lmpalrmenL of Lhe memory of Lhe wlLness adds
noLhlng Lo lL and should noL be requlred McCormlck 277 p 393 3 Wlgmore 738 p 76
!ordan v eople 131 Colo 133 376 2d 699 (1962) cerL denled 373 uS 944 83 SCL 1333
10 LLd2d 699 Pall v SLaLe 223 Md 138 162 A2d 731 (1960) SLaLe v 8lndhammer 44 n!
372 209 A2d 124 (1963) neverLheless Lhe absence of Lhe requlremenL lL ls belleved would
encourage Lhe use of sLaLemenLs carefully prepared for purposes of llLlgaLlon under Lhe
supervlslon of aLLorneys lnvesLlgaLors or clalm ad[usLers Pence Lhe example lncludes a
requlremenL LhaL Lhe wlLness noL have sufflclenL recollecLlon Lo enable hlm Lo LesLlfy fully and
accuraLely 1o Lhe same effecL are Callfornla Lvldence Code 1237 and new !ersey 8ule
63(1)(b) and Lhls has been Lhe poslLlon of Lhe federal courLs vlcksburg Merldlan 88 v
C8rlen 119 uS 99 7 SCL 118 30 LLd 299 (1886) Ahern v Webb 268 l2d 43 (10Lh Clr
1939) and see nL88 v Pudson ulp and aper Corp 273 l2d 660 663 (3Lh Clr 1960)
nL88 v lederal ualry Co 297 l2d 487 (1sL Clr 1962) 8uL cf unlLed SLaLes v Adams 383
l2d 348 (2d Clr 1967)

no aLLempL ls made ln Lhe excepLlon Lo spell ouL Lhe meLhod of esLabllshlng Lhe lnlLlal
knowledge or Lhe conLemporanelLy and accuracy of Lhe record leavlng Lhem Lo be dealL wlLh as
Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe parLlcular case mlghL lndlcaLe MulLlple person lnvolvemenL ln Lhe
process of observlng and recordlng as ln 8aLhbun v 8rancaLella 93 n!L 222 107 A 279
(1919) ls enLlrely conslsLenL wlLh Lhe excepLlon

LocaLlng Lhe excepLlon aL Lhls place ln Lhe scheme of Lhe rules ls a maLLer of cholce 1here were
Lwo oLher posslblllLles 1he flrsL was Lo regard Lhe sLaLemenL as one of Lhe group of prlor
sLaLemenLs of a LesLlfylng wlLness whlch are excluded enLlrely from Lhe caLegory of hearsay by
8ule 801(d)(1) 1haL caLegory however requlres LhaL declaranL be sub[ecL Lo cross
examlnaLlon as Lo whlch Lhe lmpalred memory aspecL of Lhe excepLlon ralses doubLs 1he
oLher posslblllLy was Lo lnclude Lhe excepLlon among Lhose covered by 8ule 804 Slnce
unavallablllLy ls requlred by LhaL rule and lack of memory ls llsLed as a specles of unavallablllLy
by Lhe deflnlLlon of Lhe Lerm ln 8ule 804(a)(3) LhaL LreaLmenL aL flrsL lmpresslon would seem
approprlaLe 1he facL ls however LhaL Lhe unavallablllLy requlremenL of Lhe excepLlon ls of a
llmlLed and pecullar naLure Accordlngly Lhe excepLlon ls locaLed aL Lhls polnL raLher Lhan ln Lhe
conLexL of a rule where unavallablllLy ls concelved of more broadly

LxcepLlon (6) represenLs an area whlch has recelved much aLLenLlon from Lhose seeklng Lo
lmprove Lhe law of evldence 1he CommonwealLh lund AcL was Lhe resulL of a sLudy compleLed
ln 1927 by a dlsLlngulshed commlLLee under Lhe chalrmanshlp of rofessor Morgan Morgan eL
al 1he Law of Lvldence Some roposals for lLs 8eform 63 (1927) WlLh changes Loo mlnor Lo
menLlon lL was adopLed by Congress ln 1936 as Lhe rule for federal courLs 28 uSC 1732 A
number of sLaLes Look slmllar acLlon 1he Commlssloners on unlform SLaLe Laws ln 1936
promulgaLed Lhe unlform 8uslness 8ecords as Lvldence AcL 9A uLA 306 whlch has acqulred
a subsLanLlal followlng ln Lhe sLaLes Model Code 8ule 314 and unlform 8ule 63(13) also deal
wlLh Lhe sub[ecL ulfference of varylng degrees of lmporLance exlsL among Lhese varlous
LreaLmenLs

1hese reform efforLs were largely wlLhln Lhe conLexL of buslness and commerclal records as Lhe
klnd usually encounLered and concenLraLed conslderable aLLenLlon upon relaxlng Lhe
requlremenL of produclng as wlLnesses or accounLlng for Lhe nonproducLlon of all parLlclpanLs
ln Lhe process of gaLherlng LransmlLLlng and recordlng lnformaLlon whlch Lhe common law had
evolved as a burdensome and crlppllng aspecL of uslng records of Lhls Lype ln Lhelr areas of
prlmary emphasls on wlLnesses Lo be called and Lhe general admlsslblllLy of ordlnary buslness
and commerclal records Lhe CommonwealLh lund AcL and Lhe unlform AcL appear Lo have
worked well 1he excepLlon seeks Lo preserve Lhelr advanLages

Cn Lhe sub[ecL of whaL wlLnesses musL be called Lhe CommonwealLh lund AcL ellmlnaLed Lhe
common law requlremenL of calllng or accounLlng for all parLlclpanLs by falllng Lo menLlon lL
unlLed SLaLes v MorLlmer 118 l2d 266 (2d Clr 1941) La orLe v unlLed SLaLes 300 l2d 878
(9Lh Clr 1962) McCormlck 290 p 608 Model Code 8ule 314 and unlform 8ule 63(13) dld
llkewlse 1he unlform AcL however abollshed Lhe common law requlremenL ln express Lerms
provldlng LhaL Lhe requlslLe foundaLlon LesLlmony mlghL be furnlshed by Lhe cusLodlan or
oLher quallfled wlLness unlform 8uslness 8ecords as Lvldence AcL 2 9A uLA 306 1he
excepLlon follows Lhe unlform AcL ln Lhls respecL

1he elemenL of unusual rellablllLy of buslness records ls sald varlously Lo be supplled by
sysLemaLlc checklng by regularlLy and conLlnulLy whlch produce hablLs of preclslon by acLual
experlence of buslness ln relylng upon Lhem or by a duLy Lo make an accuraLe record as parL of
a conLlnulng [ob or occupaLlon McCormlck 281 286 287 Laughlln 8uslness LnLrles and Lhe
Llke 46 lowa L8ev 276 (1961) 1he model sLaLuLes and rules have soughL Lo capLure Lhese
facLors and Lo exLend Lhelr lmpacL by employlng Lhe phrase regular course of buslness ln
con[uncLlon wlLh a deflnlLlon of buslness far broader Lhan lLs ordlnarlly accepLed meanlng
1he resulL ls a Lendency unduly Lo emphaslze a requlremenL of rouLlneness and repeLlLlveness
and an lnslsLence LhaL oLher Lypes of records be squeezed lnLo Lhe facL paLLerns whlch glve rlse
Lo LradlLlonal buslness records 1he rule Lherefore adopLs Lhe phrase Lhe course of a regularly
conducLed acLlvlLy as capLurlng Lhe essenLlal basls of Lhe hearsay excepLlon as lL has evolved
and Lhe essenLlal elemenL whlch can be absLracLed from Lhe varlous speclflcaLlons of whaL ls a
buslness

AmpllflcaLlon of Lhe klnds of acLlvlLles produclng admlsslble records has glven rlse Lo problems
whlch convenLlonal buslness records by Lhelr naLure avold 1hey are problems of Lhe source of
Lhe recorded lnformaLlon of enLrles ln oplnlon form of moLlvaLlon and of lnvolvemenL as
parLlclpanL ln Lhe maLLers recorded

Sources of lnformaLlon presenLed no subsLanLlal problem wlLh ordlnary buslness records All
parLlclpanLs lncludlng Lhe observer or parLlclpanL furnlshlng Lhe lnformaLlon Lo be recorded
were acLlng rouLlnely under a duLy of accuracy wlLh employer rellance on Lhe resulL or ln
shorL ln Lhe regular course of buslness lf however Lhe suppller of Lhe lnformaLlon does noL
acL ln Lhe regular course an essenLlal llnk ls broken Lhe assurance of accuracy does noL exLend
Lo Lhe lnformaLlon lLself and Lhe facL LhaL lL may be recorded wlLh scrupulous accuracy ls of no
avall An lllusLraLlon ls Lhe pollce reporL lncorporaLlng lnformaLlon obLalned from a bysLander
Lhe offlcer quallfles as acLlng ln Lhe regular course buL Lhe lnformanL does noL 1he leadlng case
!ohnson v LuLz 233 n? 124 170 nL 317 (1930) held LhaL a reporL Lhus prepared was
lnadmlsslble MosL of Lhe auLhorlLles have agreed wlLh Lhe declslon Cencarella v lyfe 171
l2d 419 (1sL Clr 1948) Cordon v 8oblnson 210 l2d 192 (3d Clr 1934) SLandard Cll Co of
Callfornla v Moore 231 l2d 188 214 (9Lh Clr 1937) cerL denled 336 uS 973 78 SCL 1139
2 LLd2d 1148 ?aLes v 8alr 1ransporL lnc 249 lSupp 681 (Sun? 1963) AnnoL 69
AL82d 1148 Cf Pawklns v Corea MoLor Lxpress lnc 360 l2d 933 (2d Clr 1966) ConLra 3
Wlgmore 1330a n 1 pp 391392 1he polnL ls noL dealL wlLh speclflcally ln Lhe
CommonwealLh lund AcL Lhe unlform AcL or unlform 8ule 63(13) Powever Model Code 8ule
314 conLalns Lhe requlremenL LhaL lL was Lhe regular course of LhaL buslness for one wlLh
personal knowledge Lo make such a memorandum or record or Lo LransmlL lnformaLlon
Lhereof Lo be lncluded ln such a memorandum or record 1he rule follows Lhls lead ln
requlrlng an lnformanL wlLh knowledge acLlng ln Lhe course of Lhe regularly conducLed acLlvlLy

LnLrles ln Lhe form of oplnlons were noL encounLered ln LradlLlonal buslness records ln vlew of
Lhe purely facLual naLure of Lhe lLems recorded buL Lhey are now commonly encounLered wlLh
respecL Lo medlcal dlagnoses prognoses and LesL resulLs as well as occaslonally ln oLher areas
1he CommonwealLh lund AcL provlded only for records of an acL LransacLlon occurrence or
evenL whlle Lhe unlform AcL Model Code 8ule 314 and unlform 8ule 63(13) merely added
Lhe amblguous Lerm condlLlon 1he llmlLed phraslng of Lhe CommonwealLh lund AcL 28
uSC 1732 may accounL for Lhe relucLance of some federal declslons Lo admlL dlagnosLlc
enLrles new ?ork Llfe lns Co v 1aylor 79 uSAppuC 66 147 l2d 297 (1943) Lyles v unlLed
SLaLes 103 uSAppuC 22 234 l2d 723 (1937) cerL denled 336 uS 961 78 SCL 997 2
LLd2d 1067 Lngland v unlLed SLaLes 174 l2d 466 (3Lh Clr 1949) Skogen v uow Chemlcal
Co 373 l2d 692 (8Lh Clr 1967) CLher federal declslons however experlenced no dlfflculLy ln
freely admlLLlng dlagnosLlc enLrles 8eed v Crder of unlLed Commerclal 1ravelers 123 l2d 232
(2d Clr 1941) 8uckmlnsLers LsLaLe v Commlssloner of lnLernal 8evenue 147 l2d 331 (2d Clr
1944) Medlna v Lrlckson 226 l2d 473 (9Lh Clr 1933) 1homas v Pogan 308 l2d 333 (4Lh Clr
1962) Clawe v 8ulon 284 l2d 493 (8Lh Clr 1960) ln Lhe sLaLe courLs Lhe Lrend favors
admlsslblllLy 8oruckl v Mackenzle 8ros Co 123 Conn 92 3 A2d 224 (1938) Allen v SL Louls
ubllc Servlce Co 363 Mo 677 283 SW2d 663 33 AL82d 1022 (1936) eople v kohlmeyer
284 n? 366 31 nL2d 490 (1940) Wels v Wels 147 Chlo SL 416 72 nL2d 243 (1947) ln
order Lo make clear lLs adherence Lo Lhe laLLer poslLlon Lhe rule speclflcally lncludes boLh
dlagnoses and oplnlons ln addlLlon Lo acLs evenLs and condlLlons as proper sub[ecLs of
admlsslble enLrles

roblems of Lhe moLlvaLlon of Lhe lnformanL have been a source of dlfflculLy and dlsagreemenL
ln almer v Poffman 318 uS 109 63 SCL 477 87 LLd 643 (1943) excluslon of an accldenL
reporL made by Lhe slnce deceased englneer offered by defendanL rallroad LrusLees ln a grade
crosslng colllslon case was upheld 1he reporL was noL ln Lhe regular course of buslness noL a
record of Lhe sysLemaLlc conducL of Lhe buslness as a buslness sald Lhe CourL 1he reporL was
prepared for use ln llLlgaLlng noL rallroadlng Whlle Lhe oplnlon menLlons Lhe moLlvaLlon of Lhe
englneer only obllquely Lhe emphasls on records of rouLlne operaLlons ls slgnlflcanL only by
vlrLue of lmpacL on moLlvaLlon Lo be accuraLe Absence of rouLlneness ralses lack of moLlvaLlon
Lo be accuraLe 1he oplnlon of Lhe CourL of Appeals had gone beyond mere lack of moLlve Lo be
accuraLe Lhe englneers sLaLemenL was drlpplng wlLh moLlvaLlons Lo mlsrepresenL Poffman
v almer 129 l2d 976 991 (2d Clr 1942) 1he dlrecL lnLroducLlon of moLlvaLlon ls a dlsLurblng
facLor slnce absence of moLlvaLlon Lo mlsrepresenL has noL LradlLlonally been a requlremenL of
Lhe rule LhaL records mlghL be selfservlng has noL been a ground for excluslon Laughlln
8uslness 8ecords and Lhe Llke 46 lowa L8ev 276 283 (1961) As !udge Clark sald ln hls dlssenL
l submlL LhaL Lhere ls hardly a grocers accounL book whlch could noL be excluded on LhaL
basls 129 l2d aL 1002 A physlclans evaluaLlon reporL of a personal ln[ury llLlganL would
appear Lo be ln Lhe rouLlne of hls buslness lf Lhe reporL ls offered by Lhe parLy aL whose
lnsLance lL was made however lL has been held lnadmlsslble ?aLes v 8alr 1ransporL lnc 249
lSupp 681 (Sun? 1963) oLherwlse lf offered by Lhe opposlLe parLy korLe v new ?ork nP
P8 Co 191 l2d 86 (2d Clr 1931) cerL denled 342 uS 868 72 SCL 108 96 LLd 632

1he declslons hlnge on moLlvaLlon and whlch parLy ls enLlLled Lo be concerned abouL lL
rofessor McCormlck belleved LhaL Lhe docLors reporL or Lhe accldenL reporL were sufflclenLly
rouLlne Lo [usLlfy admlsslblllLy McCormlck 287 p 604 ?eL heslLaLlon musL be experlenced ln
admlLLlng everyLhlng whlch ls observed and recorded ln Lhe course of a regularly conducLed
acLlvlLy LfforLs Lo seL a llmlL are lllusLraLed by ParLzog v unlLed SLaLes 217 l2d 706 (4Lh Clr
1934) error Lo admlL worksheeLs made by slnce deceased depuLy collecLor ln preparaLlon for
Lhe lnsLanL lncome Lax evaslon prosecuLlon and unlLed SLaLes v Ware 247 l2d 698 (7Lh Clr
1937) error Lo admlL narcoLlcs agenLs records of purchases See also LxcepLlon paragraph (8)
lnfra as Lo Lhe publlc record aspecLs of records of Lhls naLure Some declslons have been
saLlsfled as Lo moLlvaLlon of an accldenL reporL lf made pursuanL Lo sLaLuLory duLy unlLed
SLaLes v new ?ork lorelgn 1rade Zone CperaLors 304 l2d 792 (2d Clr 1962) 1aylor v
8alLlmore C 8 Co 344 l2d 281 (2d Clr 1963) slnce Lhe reporL was orlenLed ln a dlrecLlon
oLher Lhan Lhe llLlgaLlon whlch ensued Cf MaLLhews v unlLed SLaLes 217 l2d 409 (3Lh Clr
1934) 1he formulaLlon of speclflc Lerms whlch would assure saLlsfacLory resulLs ln all cases ls
noL posslble ConsequenLly Lhe rule proceeds from Lhe base LhaL records made ln Lhe course of
a regularly conducLed acLlvlLy wlll be Laken as admlsslble buL sub[ecL Lo auLhorlLy Lo exclude lf
Lhe sources of lnformaLlon or oLher clrcumsLances lndlcaLe lack of LrusLworLhlness

Cccaslonal declslons have reached for enhanced accuracy by requlrlng lnvolvemenL as a
parLlclpanL ln maLLers reporLed Clalnos v unlLed SLaLes 82 uSAppuC 278 163 l2d 393
(1947) error Lo admlL pollce records of convlcLlons SLandard Cll Co of Callfornla v Moore 231
l2d 188 (9Lh Clr 1937) cerL denled 336 uS 973 78 SCL 1139 2 LLd2d 1148 error Lo admlL
employees records of observed buslness pracLlces of oLhers 1he rule lncludes no requlremenL
of Lhls naLure Wholly accepLable records may lnvolve maLLers merely observed eg Lhe
weaLher

1he form whlch Lhe record may assume under Lhe rule ls descrlbed broadly as a
memorandum reporL record or daLa compllaLlon ln any form 1he expresslon daLa
compllaLlon ls used as broadly descrlpLlve of any means of sLorlng lnformaLlon oLher Lhan Lhe
convenLlonal words and flgures ln wrlLLen or documenLary form lL lncludes buL ls by no means
llmlLed Lo elecLronlc compuLer sLorage 1he Lerm ls borrowed from revlsed 8ule 34(a) of Lhe
8ules of Clvll rocedure

LxcepLlon (7) lallure of a record Lo menLlon a maLLer whlch would ordlnarlly be menLloned ls
saLlsfacLory evldence of lLs nonexlsLence unlform 8ule 63(14) CommenL Whlle probably noL
hearsay as deflned ln 8ule 801 supra declslons may be found whlch class Lhe evldence noL only
as hearsay buL also as noL wlLhln any excepLlon ln order Lo seL Lhe quesLlon aL resL ln favor of
admlsslblllLy lL ls speclflcally LreaLed here McCormlck 289 p 609 Morgan 8aslc roblems of
Lvldence 314 (1962) 3 Wlgmore 1331 unlform 8ule 63(14) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1272
kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(n) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(14)

LxcepLlon (8) ubllc records are a recognlzed hearsay excepLlon aL common law and have been
Lhe sub[ecL of sLaLuLes wlLhouL number McCormlck 291 See for example 28 uSC 1733
Lhe relaLlve narrowness of whlch ls lllusLraLed by lLs nonappllcablllLy Lo nonfederal publlc
agencles Lhus necesslLaLlng reporL Lo Lhe less approprlaLe buslness record excepLlon Lo Lhe
hearsay rule kay v unlLed SLaLes 233 l2d 476 (4Lh Clr 1938) 1he rule makes no dlsLlncLlon
beLween federal and nonfederal offlces and agencles

!usLlflcaLlon for Lhe excepLlon ls Lhe assumpLlon LhaL a publlc offlclal wlll perform hls duLy
properly and Lhe unllkellhood LhaL he wlll remember deLalls lndependenLly of Lhe record Wong
Wlng loo v McCraLh 196 l2d 120 (9Lh Clr 1932) and see Chesapeake uelaware Canal Co
v unlLed SLaLes 230 uS 123 39 SCL 407 63 LLd 889 (1919) As Lo lLems (a) and (b) furLher
supporL ls found ln Lhe rellablllLy facLors underlylng records of regularly conducLed acLlvlLles
generally See LxcepLlon paragraph (6) supra

(a) Cases lllusLraLlng Lhe admlsslblllLy of records of Lhe offlces or agencys own acLlvlLles are
numerous Chesapeake uelaware Canal Co v unlLed SLaLes 230 uS 123 39 SCL 407 63
LLd 889 (1919) 1reasury records of mlscellaneous recelpLs and dlsbursemenLs Poward v
errln 200 uS 71 26 SCL 193 30 LLd 374 (1906) Ceneral Land Cfflce records 8allew v
unlLed SLaLes 160 uS 187 16 SCL 263 40 LLd 388 (1893) enslon Cfflce records

(b) Cases susLalnlng admlsslblllLy of records of maLLers observed are also numerous unlLed
SLaLes v van Pook 284 l2d 489 (7Lh Clr 1960) remanded for resenLenclng 363 uS 609 81
SCL 823 3 LLd2d 821 leLLer from lnducLlon offlcer Lo ulsLrlcL ALLorney pursuanL Lo army
regulaLlons sLaLlng facL and clrcumsLances of refusal Lo be lnducLed 1kach v unlLed SLaLes
242 l2d 937 (3Lh Clr 1937) affldavlL of WhlLe Pouse personnel offlcer LhaL search of records
showed no employmenL of accused charged wlLh fraudulenLly represenLlng hlmself as an
envoy of Lhe resldenL Mlnnehaha CounLy v kelley 130 l2d 336 (8Lh Clr 1943) WeaLher
8ureau records of ralnfall unlLed SLaLes v Meyer 113 l2d 387 (7Lh Clr 1940) cerL denled 311
uS 706 61 SCL 174 83 LLd 439 map prepared by governmenL englneer from lnformaLlon
furnlshed by men worklng under hls supervlslon

(c) 1he more conLroverslal area of publlc records ls LhaL of Lhe socalled evaluaLlve reporL 1he
dlsagreemenL among Lhe declslons has been due ln parL no doubL Lo Lhe varleLy of slLuaLlons
encounLered as well as Lo dlfferences ln prlnclple SusLalnlng admlsslblllLy are such cases as
unlLed SLaLes v uumas 149 uS 278 13 SCL 872 37 LLd 734 (1893) sLaLemenL of accounL
cerLlfled by osLmasLer Ceneral ln acLlon agalnsL posLmasLer McCarLy v unlLed SLaLes 183
l2d 320 (3Lh Clr 1930) reh denled 187 l2d 234 CerLlflcaLe of SeLLlemenL of Ceneral
AccounLlng Cfflce showlng lndebLedness and leLLer from Army offlclal sLaLlng CovernmenL had
performed ln acLlon on conLracL Lo purchase and remove wasLe food from Army camp Moran
v lLLsburghues Molnes SLeel Co 183 l2d 467 (3d Clr 1930) reporL of 8ureau of Mlnes as Lo
cause of gas Lank exploslon eLlLlon of W 164 lSupp 639 (Lua1938) reporL by
lmmlgraLlon and naLurallzaLlon Servlce lnvesLlgaLor LhaL peLlLloner was known ln communlLy as
wlfe of man Lo whom she was noL marrled 1o Lhe opposlLe effecL and denylng admlsslblllLy are
lranklln v Skelly Cll Co 141 l2d 368 (10Lh Clr 1944) SLaLe llre Marshals reporL of cause of
gas exploslon Lomax 1ransp Co v unlLed SLaLes 183 l2d 331 (9Lh Clr 1930) CerLlflcaLe of
SeLLlemenL from Ceneral AccounLlng Cfflce ln acLlon for naval supplles losL ln warehouse flre
?ung !ln 1eung v uulles 229 l2d 244 (2d Clr 1936) SLaLus 8eporLs offered Lo [usLlfy delay ln
processlng passporL appllcaLlons ollce reporLs have generally been excluded excepL Lo Lhe
exLenL Lo whlch Lhey lncorporaLe flrsLhand observaLlons of Lhe offlcer AnnoL 69 AL82d
1148 varlous klnds of evaluaLlve reporLs are admlsslble under federal sLaLuLes 7 uSC 78
flndlngs of SecreLary of AgrlculLure prlma facle evldence of Lrue grade of graln 7 uSC 210(f)
flndlngs of SecreLary of AgrlculLure prlma facle evldence ln acLlon for damages agalnsL
sLockyard owner 7 uSC 292 order by SecreLary of AgrlculLure prlma facle evldence ln
[udlclal enforcemenL proceedlngs agalnsL producers assoclaLlon monopoly 7 uSC 1622(h)
ueparLmenL of AgrlculLure lnspecLlon cerLlflcaLes of producLs shlpped ln lnLersLaLe commerce
prlma facle evldence 8 uSC 1440(c) separaLlon of allen from mlllLary servlce on condlLlons
oLher Lhan honorable provable by cerLlflcaLe from deparLmenL ln proceedlngs Lo revoke
clLlzenshlp 18 uSC 4243 cerLlflcaLe of ulrecLor of rlsons LhaL convlcLed person has been
examlned and found probably lncompeLenL aL Llme of Lrlal prlma facle evldence ln courL
hearlng on compeLency 42 uSC 269(b) blll of healLh by approprlaLe offlclal prlma facle
evldence of vessels sanlLary hlsLory and condlLlon and compllance wlLh regulaLlons 46 uSC
679 cerLlflcaLe of consul presumpLlve evldence of refusal of masLer Lo LransporL desLlLuLe
seamen Lo unlLed SLaLes Whlle Lhese sLaLuLory excepLlons Lo Lhe hearsay rule are lefL
undlsLurbed 8ule 802 Lhe wllllngness of Congress Lo recognlze a subsLanLlal measure of
admlsslblllLy for evaluaLlve reporLs ls a helpful gulde

lacLors whlch may be of asslsLance ln passlng upon Lhe admlsslblllLy of evaluaLlve reporLs
lnclude (1) Lhe Llmellness of Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon McCormack Can Lhe CourLs Make Wlder use of
8eporLs of Cfflclal lnvesLlgaLlons? 42 lowa L8ev 363 (1937) (2) Lhe speclal sklll or experlence
of Lhe offlclal ld (3) wheLher a hearlng was held and Lhe level aL whlch conducLed lranklln v
Skelly Cll Co 141 l2d 368 (10Lh Clr 1944) (4) posslble moLlvaLlon problems suggesLed by
almer v Poffman 318 uS 109 63 SCL 477 87 LLd 643 (1943) CLhers no doubL could be
added

1he formulaLlon of an approach whlch would glve approprlaLe welghL Lo all posslble facLors ln
every slLuaLlon ls an obvlous lmposslblllLy Pence Lhe rule as ln LxcepLlon paragraph (6)
assumes admlsslblllLy ln Lhe flrsL lnsLance buL wlLh ample provlslon for escape lf sufflclenL
negaLlve facLors are presenL ln one respecL however Lhe rule wlLh respecL Lo evaluaLe reporLs
under lLem (c) ls very speclflc Lhey are admlsslble only ln clvll cases and agalnsL Lhe
governmenL ln crlmlnal cases ln vlew of Lhe almosL cerLaln colllslon wlLh confronLaLlon rlghLs
whlch would resulL from Lhelr use agalnsL Lhe accused ln a crlmlnal case

LxcepLlon (9) 8ecords of vlLal sLaLlsLlcs are commonly Lhe sub[ecL of parLlcular sLaLuLes maklng
Lhem admlsslble ln evldence unlform vlLal SLaLlsLlcs AcL 9C uLA 330 (1937) 1he rule ls ln
prlnclple narrower Lhan unlform 8ule 63(16) whlch lncludes reporLs requlred of persons
performlng funcLlons auLhorlzed by sLaLuLe yeL ln pracLlcal effecL Lhe Lwo are subsLanLlally Lhe
same CommenL unlform 8ule 63(16) 1he excepLlon as drafLed ls ln Lhe paLLern of Callfornla
Lvldence Code 1281

LxcepLlon (10) 1he prlnclple of provlng nonoccurrence of an evenL by evldence of Lhe absence
of a record whlch would regularly be made of lLs occurrence developed ln LxcepLlon
paragraph (7) wlLh respecL Lo regularly conducLed acLlvlLles ls here exLended Lo publlc records
of Lhe klnd menLloned ln LxcepLlons paragraphs (8) and (9) 3 Wlgmore 1633(6) p 319
Some harmless dupllcaLlon no doubL exlsLs wlLh LxcepLlon paragraph (7) lor lnsLances of
federal sLaLuLes recognlzlng Lhls meLhod of proof see 8 uSC 1284(b) proof of absence of
allen crewmans name from ouLgolng manlfesL prlma facle evldence of fallure Lo deLaln or
deporL and 42 uSC 403(c)(3) (4)(8) (4)(C) absence of PLW ueparLmenL of PealLh
LducaLlon and Welfare record prlma facle evldence of no wages or selfemploymenL lncome

1he rule lncludes slLuaLlons ln whlch absence of a record may lLself be Lhe ulLlmaLe focal polnL
of lnqulry eg eople v Love 310 lll 338 142 nL 204 (1923) cerLlflcaLe of SecreLary of SLaLe
admlLLed Lo show fallure Lo flle documenLs requlred by SecurlLles Law as well as cases where
Lhe absence of a record ls offered as proof of Lhe nonoccurrence of an evenL ordlnarlly
recorded

1he refusal of Lhe common law Lo allow proof by cerLlflcaLe of Lhe lack of a record or enLry has
no apparenL [usLlflcaLlon 3 Wlgmore 1678(7) p 732 1he rule Lakes Lhe opposlLe poslLlon as
do unlform 8ule 63(17) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1284 kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60
460(c) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(17) Congress has recognlzed cerLlflcaLlon as evldence of
Lhe lack of a record 8 uSC 1360(d) cerLlflcaLe of ALLorney Ceneral or oLher deslgnaLed
offlcer LhaL no record of lmmlgraLlon and naLurallzaLlon Servlce of speclfled naLure or enLry
Lhereln ls found admlsslble ln allen cases

LxcepLlon (11) 8ecords of acLlvlLles of rellglous organlzaLlons are currenLly recognlzed as
admlsslble aL leasL Lo Lhe exLenL of Lhe buslness records excepLlon Lo Lhe hearsay rule 3
Wlgmore 1323 p 371 and LxcepLlon paragraph (6) would be appllcable Powever boLh Lhe
buslness record docLrlne and LxcepLlon paragraph (6) requlre LhaL Lhe person furnlshlng Lhe
lnformaLlon be one ln Lhe buslness or acLlvlLy 1he resulL ls such declslons as ually v Crand
Lodge 311 lll 184 142 nL 478 (1924) holdlng a church record admlsslble Lo prove facL daLe
and place of bapLlsm buL noL age of chlld excepL LhaL he had aL leasL been born aL Lhe Llme ln
vlew of Lhe unllkellhood LhaL false lnformaLlon would be furnlshed on occaslons of Lhls klnd Lhe
rule conLalns no requlremenL LhaL Lhe lnformanL be ln Lhe course of Lhe acLlvlLy See Callfornla
Lvldence Code 1313 and CommenL

LxcepLlon (12) 1he prlnclple of proof by cerLlflcaLlon ls recognlzed as Lo publlc offlclals ln
LxcepLlons paragraphs (8) and (10) and wlLh respecL Lo auLhenLlcaLlon ln 8ule 902 1he
presenL excepLlon ls a dupllcaLlon Lo Lhe exLenL LhaL lL deals wlLh a cerLlflcaLe by a publlc
offlclal as ln Lhe case of a [udge who performs a marrlage ceremony 1he area covered by Lhe
rule ls however subsLanLlally larger and exLends Lhe cerLlflcaLlon procedure Lo clergymen and
Lhe llke who perform marrlages and oLher ceremonles or admlnlsLer sacramenLs 1hus
cerLlflcaLes of such maLLers as bapLlsm or conflrmaLlon as well as marrlage are lncluded ln
prlnclple Lhey are as accepLable evldence as cerLlflcaLes of publlc offlcers See 3 Wlgmore
1643 as Lo marrlage cerLlflcaLes When Lhe person execuLlng Lhe cerLlflcaLe ls noL a publlc
offlclal Lhe selfauLhenLlcaLlng characLer of documenLs purporLlng Lo emanaLe from publlc
offlclals see 8ule 902 ls lacklng and proof ls requlred LhaL Lhe person was auLhorlzed and dld
make Lhe cerLlflcaLe 1he Llme elemenL however may safely be Laken as supplled by Lhe
cerLlflcaLe once auLhorlLy and auLhenLlclLy are esLabllshed parLlcularly ln vlew of Lhe
presumpLlon LhaL a documenL was execuLed on Lhe daLe lL bears

lor slmllar rules some llmlLed Lo cerLlflcaLes of marrlage wlLh varlaLlons ln foundaLlon
requlremenLs see unlform 8ule 63(18) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1316 kansas Code of Clvll
rocedure 60460(p) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(18)

LxcepLlon (13) 8ecords of famlly hlsLory kepL ln famlly 8lbles have by long LradlLlon been
recelved ln evldence 3 Wlgmore 1493 1496 clLlng numerous sLaLuLes and declslons See
also 8egulaLlons Soclal SecurlLy AdmlnlsLraLlon 20 Cl8 404703(c) recognlzlng famlly 8lble
enLrles as proof of age ln Lhe absence of publlc or church records Cplnlons ln Lhe area also
lnclude lnscrlpLlons on LombsLones publlcly dlsplayed pedlgrees and engravlngs on rlngs
Wlgmore supra 1he rule ls subsLanLlally ldenLlcal ln coverage wlLh Callfornla Lvldence Code
1312

LxcepLlon (14) 1he recordlng of LlLle documenLs ls a purely sLaLuLory developmenL under any
Lheory of Lhe admlsslblllLy of publlc records Lhe records would be recelvable as evldence of Lhe
conLenLs of Lhe recorded documenL else Lhe recordlng process would be reduced Lo a nulllLy
When however Lhe record ls offered for Lhe furLher purpose of provlng execuLlon and
dellvery a problem of lack of flrsLhand knowledge by Lhe recorder noL presenL as Lo conLenLs
ls presenLed 1hls problem ls solved seemlngly ln all [urlsdlcLlons by quallfylng for recordlng
only Lhose documenLs shown by a speclfled procedure elLher acknowledgemenL or a form of
probaLe Lo have been execuLed and dellvered 3 Wlgmore 16471631 1hus whaL may
appear ln Lhe rule aL flrsL glance as endowlng Lhe record wlLh an effecL lndependenLly of local
law and lnvlLlng dlfflculLles of an Lrle naLure under ClLles Servlce Cll Co v uunlap 308 uS 208
60 SCL 201 84 LLd 196 (1939) ls noL presenL slnce Lhe local law ln facL governs under Lhe
example

LxcepLlon (13) ulsposlLlve documenLs ofLen conLaln reclLals of facL 1hus a deed purporLlng Lo
have been execuLed by an aLLorney ln facL may reclLe Lhe exlsLence of Lhe power of aLLorney or
a deed may reclLe LhaL Lhe granLors are all Lhe helrs of Lhe lasL record owner under Lhe rule
Lhese reclLals are exempLed from Lhe hearsay rule 1he clrcumsLances under whlch dlsposlLlve
documenLs are execuLed and Lhe requlremenL LhaL Lhe reclLal be germane Lo Lhe purpose of Lhe
documenL are belleved Lo be adequaLe guaranLees of LrusLworLhlness parLlcularly ln vlew of
Lhe nonappllcablllLy of Lhe rule lf deallngs wlLh Lhe properLy have been lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe
documenL 1he age of Lhe documenL ls of no slgnlflcance Lhough ln pracLlcal appllcaLlon Lhe
documenL wlll mosL ofLen be an anclenL one See unlform 8ule 63(29) CommenL

Slmllar provlslons are conLalned ln unlform 8ule 63(29) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1330
kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(aa) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(29)

LxcepLlon (16) AuLhenLlcaLlng a documenL as anclenL essenLlally ln Lhe paLLern of Lhe common
law as provlded ln 8ule 901(b)(8) leaves open as a separaLe quesLlon Lhe admlsslblllLy of
asserLlve sLaLemenLs conLalned Lhereln as agalnsL a hearsay ob[ecLlon 7 Wlgmore 2143a
Wlgmore furLher sLaLes LhaL Lhe anclenL documenL Lechnlque of auLhenLlcaLlon ls unlversally
conceded Lo apply Lo all sorLs of documenLs lncludlng leLLers records conLracLs maps and
cerLlflcaLes ln addlLlon Lo LlLle documenLs clLlng numerous declslons ld 2143 Slnce mosL of
Lhese lLems are slgnlflcanL evldenLlally only lnsofar as Lhey are asserLlve Lhelr admlsslon ln
evldence musL be as a hearsay excepLlon 8uL see 3 ld 1373 p 429 referrlng Lo reclLals ln
anclenL deeds as a llmlLed hearsay excepLlon 1he former poslLlon ls belleved Lo be Lhe
correcL one ln reason and auLhorlLy As polnLed ouL ln McCormlck 298 danger of mlsLake ls
mlnlmlzed by auLhenLlcaLlon requlremenLs and age affords assurance LhaL Lhe wrlLlng
anLedaLes Lhe presenL conLroversy See uallas CounLy v Commerclal unlon Assurance Co 286
l2d 388 (3Lh Clr 1961) upholdlng admlsslblllLy of 38yearold newspaper sLory Cf Morgan
8aslc roblems of Lvldence 364 (1962) buL see ld 234

lor a slmllar provlslon buL wlLh Lhe added requlremenL LhaL Lhe sLaLemenL has slnce generally
been acLed upon as Lrue by persons havlng an lnLeresL ln Lhe maLLer see Callfornla Lvldence
Code 1331

LxcepLlon (17) Ample auLhorlLy aL common law supporLed Lhe admlsslon ln evldence of lLems
falllng ln Lhls caLegory Whlle Wlgmores LexL ls narrowly orlenLed Lo llsLs eLc prepared for Lhe
use of a Lrade or professlon 6 Wlgmore 1702 auLhorlLles are clLed whlch lnclude oLher klnds
of publlcaLlons for example newspaper markeL reporLs Lelephone dlrecLorles and clLy
dlrecLorles ld 17021706 1he basls of LrusLworLhlness ls general rellance by Lhe publlc or by
a parLlcular segmenL of lL and Lhe moLlvaLlon of Lhe compller Lo fosLer rellance by belng
accuraLe

lor slmllar provlslons see unlform 8ule 63(30) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1340 kansas Code
of Clvll rocedure 60460(bb) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(30) unlform Commerclal Code
2724 provldes for admlsslblllLy ln evldence of reporLs ln offlclal publlcaLlons or Lrade [ournals
or ln newspapers or perlodlcals of general clrculaLlon publlshed as Lhe reporLs of such
esLabllshed commodlLy markeL

LxcepLlon (18) 1he wrlLers have generally favored Lhe admlsslblllLy of learned LreaLlses
McCormlck 296 p 621 Morgan 8aslc roblems of Lvldence 366 (1962) 6 Wlgmore 1692
wlLh Lhe supporL of occaslonal declslons and rules ClLy of uoLhan v Pardy 237 Ala 603 188
So 264 (1939) Lewandowskl v referred 8lsk MuL lns Co 33 Wls2d 69 146 nW2d 303
(1966) 66 MlchL8ev 183 (1967) unlform 8ule 63(31) kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60
460(ce) buL Lhe greaL welghL of auLhorlLy has been LhaL learned LreaLlses are noL admlsslble as
subsLanLlve evldence Lhough usable ln Lhe crossexamlnaLlon of experLs 1he foundaLlon of Lhe
mlnorlLy vlew ls LhaL Lhe hearsay ob[ecLlon musL be regarded as unlmpresslve when dlrecLed
agalnsL LreaLlses slnce a hlgh sLandard of accuracy ls engendered by varlous facLors Lhe LreaLlse
ls wrlLLen prlmarlly and lmparLlally for professlonals sub[ecL Lo scruLlny and exposure for
lnaccuracy wlLh Lhe repuLaLlon of Lhe wrlLer aL sLake 6 Wlgmore 1692 Sound as Lhls poslLlon
may be wlLh respecL Lo LrusLworLhlness Lhere ls neverLheless an addlLlonal dlfflculLy ln Lhe
llkellhood LhaL Lhe LreaLlse wlll be mlsundersLood and mlsapplled wlLhouL experL asslsLance and
supervlslon 1hls dlfflculLy ls recognlzed ln Lhe cases demonsLraLlng unwllllngness Lo susLaln
flndlngs relaLlve Lo dlsablllLy on Lhe basls of [udlclally noLlced medlcal LexLs 8oss v Cardner
363 l2d 334 (6Lh Clr 1966) Sayers v Cardner 380 l2d 940 (6Lh Clr 1967) Colwell v Cardner
386 l2d 36 (6Lh Clr 1967) Clendennlng v 8lblcoff 213 lSupp 301 (WuMo 1962) Cook v
Celebrezze 217 l Supp 366 (WuMo 1963) Sosna v Celebrezze 234 lSupp 289 (Lua
1964) and see Mcuanlel v Celebrezze 331 l2d 426 (4Lh Clr 1964) 1he rule avolds Lhe danger
of mlsundersLandlng and mlsappllcaLlon by llmlLlng Lhe use of LreaLlses as subsLanLlve evldence
Lo slLuaLlons ln whlch an experL ls on Lhe sLand and avallable Lo explaln and asslsL ln Lhe
appllcaLlon of Lhe LreaLlse lf declared 1he llmlLaLlon upon recelvlng Lhe publlcaLlon lLself
physlcally ln evldence conLalned ln Lhe lasL senLence ls deslgned Lo furLher Lhls pollcy

1he relevance of Lhe use of LreaLlses on crossexamlnaLlon ls evldenL 1hls use of LreaLlses has
been Lhe sub[ecL of varled vlews 1he mosL resLrlcLlve poslLlon ls LhaL Lhe wlLness musL have
sLaLed expressly on dlrecL hls rellance upon Lhe LreaLlse A sllghLly more llberal approach sLlll
lnslsLs upon rellance buL allows lL Lo be developed on crossexamlnaLlon lurLher relaxaLlon
dlspenses wlLh rellance buL requlres recognlLlon as an auLhorlLy by Lhe wlLness developable on
crossexamlnaLlon 1he greaLesL llberallLy ls found ln declslons allowlng use of Lhe LreaLlse on
crossexamlnaLlon when lLs sLaLus as an auLhorlLy ls esLabllshed by any means AnnoL 60
AL82d 77 1he excepLlon ls hlnged upon Lhls lasL poslLlon whlch ls LhaL of Lhe Supreme CourL
8ellly v lnkus 338 uS 269 70 SCL 110 94 LLd 63 (1949) and of recenL well consldered
sLaLe courL declslons ClLy of SL eLersburg v lerguson 193 So2d 648 (llaApp 1967) cerL
denled lla 201 So2d 336 uarllng v CharlesLon Memorlal CommunlLy PosplLal 33 lll2d 326
211 nL2d 233 (1963) uabroe v 8hodes Co 64 Wash2d 431 392 2d 317 (1964)

ln 8ellly v lnkus supra Lhe CourL polnLed ouL LhaL LesLlng of professlonal knowledge was
lncompleLe wlLhouL exploraLlon of Lhe wlLness knowledge of and aLLlLude Loward esLabllshed
LreaLlses ln Lhe fleld 1he process works equally well ln reverse and furnlshes Lhe basls of Lhe
rule

1he rule does noL requlre LhaL Lhe wlLness rely upon or recognlze Lhe LreaLlse as auLhorlLaLlve
Lhus avoldlng Lhe posslblllLy LhaL Lhe experL may aL Lhe ouLseL block crossexamlnaLlon by
refuslng Lo concede rellance or auLhorlLaLlveness uabroe v 8hodes Co supra Moreover Lhe
rule avolds Lhe unreallLy of admlLLlng evldence for Lhe purpose of lmpeachmenL only wlLh an
lnsLrucLlon Lo Lhe [ury noL Lo conslder lL oLherwlse 1he parallel Lo Lhe LreaLmenL of prlor
lnconslsLenL sLaLemenLs wlll be apparenL See 8ules 613(b) and 801(d)(1)

LxcepLlons (19) (20) and (21) 1rusLworLhlness ln repuLaLlon evldence ls found when Lhe Loplc
ls such LhaL Lhe facLs are llkely Lo have been lnqulred abouL and LhaL persons havlng personal
knowledge have dlsclosed facLs whlch have Lhus been dlscussed ln Lhe communlLy and Lhus Lhe
communlLys concluslon lf any has been formed ls llkely Lo be a LrusLworLhy one 3 Wlgmore
1380 p 444 and see also 1383 Cn Lhls common foundaLlon repuLaLlon as Lo land
boundarles cusLoms general hlsLory characLer and marrlage have come Lo be regarded as
admlsslble 1he breadLh of Lhe underlylng prlnclple suggesLs Lhe formulaLlon of an equally
broad excepLlon buL LradlLlon has ln facL been much narrower and more parLlcularlzed and
Lhls ls Lhe paLLern of Lhese excepLlons ln Lhe rule

LxcepLlon paragraph (19) ls concerned wlLh maLLers of personal and famlly hlsLory Marrlage
ls unlversally conceded Lo be a proper sub[ecL of proof by evldence of repuLaLlon ln Lhe
communlLy 3 Wlgmore 1602 As Lo such lLems as leglLlmacy relaLlonshlp adopLlon blrLh
and deaLh Lhe declslons are dlvlded ld 1603 All seem Lo be suscepLlble Lo belng Lhe sub[ecL
of well founded repuLe 1he world ln whlch Lhe repuLaLlon may exlsL may be famlly
assoclaLes or communlLy 1hls world has proved capable of expandlng wlLh changlng Llmes
from Lhe slngle uncompllcaLed nelghborhood ln whlch all acLlvlLles Lake place Lo Lhe mulLlple
and unrelaLed worlds of work rellglous afflllaLlon and soclal acLlvlLy ln each of whlch a
repuLaLlon may be generaLed eople v 8eeves 360 lll 33 193 nL 443 (1933) SLaLe v
Axllrod 248 Mlnn 204 79 nW2d 677 (1936) MassSLaL 1947 c 410 MCLA c 233 21A 3
Wlgmore 1616 1he famlly has ofLen served as Lhe polnL of beglnnlng for allowlng communlLy
repuLaLlon 3 Wlgmore 1488 lor comparable provlslons see unlform 8ule 63(26) (27)(c)
Callfornla Lvldence Code 1313 1314 kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(x) (y)(3) new
!ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(26) (27)(c)

1he flrsL porLlon of LxcepLlon paragraph (20) ls based upon Lhe general admlsslblllLy of
evldence of repuLaLlon as Lo land boundarles and land cusLoms expanded ln Lhls counLry Lo
lnclude prlvaLe as well as publlc boundarles McCormlck 299 p 623 1he repuLaLlon ls
requlred Lo anLedaLe Lhe conLroversy Lhough noL Lo be anclenL 1he second porLlon ls llkewlse
supporLed by auLhorlLy ld and ls deslgned Lo faclllLaLe proof of evenLs when [udlclal noLlce ls
noL avallable 1he hlsLorlcal characLer of Lhe sub[ecL maLLer dlspenses wlLh any need LhaL Lhe
repuLaLlon anLedaLe Lhe conLroversy wlLh respecL Lo whlch lL ls offered lor slmllar provlslons
see unlform 8ule 63(27)(a) (b) Callfornla Lvldence Code 13201322 kansas Code of Clvll
rocedure 60460(y) (1) (2) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(27)(a) (b)

LxcepLlon paragraph (21) recognlzes Lhe LradlLlonal accepLance of repuLaLlon evldence as a
means of provlng human characLer McCormlck 44 138 1he excepLlon deals only wlLh Lhe
hearsay aspecL of Lhls klnd of evldence LlmlLaLlons upon admlsslblllLy based on oLher grounds
wlll be found ln 8ules 404 relevancy of characLer evldence generally and 608 characLer of
wlLness 1he excepLlon ls ln effecL a relLeraLlon ln Lhe conLexL of hearsay of 8ule 403(a)
Slmllar provlslons are conLalned ln unlform 8ule 63(28) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1324
kansas Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(z) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(28)

LxcepLlon (22) When Lhe sLaLus of a former [udgmenL ls under conslderaLlon ln subsequenL
llLlgaLlon Lhree posslblllLles musL be noLed (1) Lhe former [udgmenL ls concluslve under Lhe
docLrlne of res [udlcaLa elLher as a bar or a collaLeral esLoppel or (2) lL ls admlsslble ln evldence
for whaL lL ls worLh or (3) lL may be of no effecL aL all 1he flrsL slLuaLlon does noL lnvolve any
problem of evldence excepL ln Lhe way LhaL prlnclples of subsLanLlve law generally bear upon
Lhe relevancy and maLerlallLy of evldence 1he rule does noL deal wlLh Lhe subsLanLlve effecL of
Lhe [udgmenL as a bar or collaLeral esLoppel When however Lhe docLrlne of res [udlcaLa does
noL apply Lo make Lhe [udgmenL elLher a bar or a collaLeral esLoppel a cholce ls presenLed
beLween Lhe second and Lhlrd alLernaLlves 1he rule adopLs Lhe second for [udgmenLs of
crlmlnal convlcLlon of felony grade 1hls ls Lhe dlrecLlon of Lhe declslons AnnoL 18 AL82d
1287 1299 whlch manlfesL an lncreaslng relucLance Lo re[ecL ln LoLo Lhe valldlLy of Lhe laws
facLflndlng processes ouLslde Lhe conflnes of res [udlcaLa and collaLeral esLoppel Whlle Lhls
may leave a [ury wlLh Lhe evldence of convlcLlon buL wlLhouL means Lo evaluaLe lL as suggesLed
by !udge PlnLon noLe 27 lllL8ev 193 (1932) lL seems safe Lo assume LhaL Lhe [ury wlll glve lL
subsLanLlal effecL unless defendanL offers a saLlsfacLory explanaLlon a posslblllLy noL foreclosed
by Lhe provlslon 8uL see norLh 8lver lns Co v MlllLello 104 Colo 28 88 2d 367 (1939) ln
whlch Lhe [ury found for plalnLlff on a flre pollcy desplLe Lhe lnLroducLlon of hls convlcLlon for
arson lor supporLlng federal declslons see Clark ! ln new ?ork Cuba Mall SS Co v
ConLlnenLal Cas Co 117 l2d 404 411 (2d Clr 1941) ConnecLlcuL llre lns Co v larrara 277
l2d 388 (8Lh Clr 1960)

racLlcal conslderaLlons requlre excluslon of convlcLlons of mlnor offenses noL became Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of [usLlce ln lLs lower echelons musL be lnferlor buL because moLlvaLlon Lo
defend aL Lhls level 2s ofLen mlnlmal or nonexlsLenL Cope v Coble 39 CalApp2d 448 103 2d
398 (1940) !ones v 1alboL 87 ldaho 498 394 2d 316 (1964) Warren v Marsh 213 Mlnn
613 11 nW2d 328 (1943) AnnoL 18 AL82d 1287 12931297 16 8rooklyn L8ev 286
(1930) 30 ColumL8ev 329 (1930) 33 Cornell LC 872 (1930) Pence Lhe rule lncludes only
convlcLlons of felony grade measured by federal sLandards

!udgmenLs of convlcLlon based upon pleas of nolo conLendere are noL lncluded 1hls poslLlon ls
conslsLenL wlLh Lhe LreaLmenL of nolo pleas ln 8ule 410 and Lhe auLhorlLles clLed ln Lhe Advlsory
CommlLLees noLe ln supporL Lhereof

Whlle Lhese rules do noL ln general purporL Lo resolve consLlLuLlonal lssues Lhey have ln
general been drafLed wlLh a vlew Lo avoldlng colllslon wlLh consLlLuLlonal prlnclples
ConsequenLly Lhe excepLlon does noL lnclude evldence of Lhe convlcLlon of a Lhlrd person
offered agalnsL Lhe accused ln a crlmlnal prosecuLlon Lo prove any facL essenLlal Lo susLaln Lhe
[udgmenL of convlcLlon A conLrary poslLlon would seem clearly Lo vlolaLe Lhe rlghL of
confronLaLlon klrby v unlLed SLaLes 174 uS 47 19 SCL 374 43 LLd 890 (1899) error Lo
convlcL of possesslng sLolen posLage sLamps wlLh Lhe only evldence of LhefL belng Lhe record of
convlcLlon of Lhe Lhleves 1he slLuaLlon ls Lo be dlsLlngulshed from cases ln whlch convlcLlon of
anoLher person ls an elemenL of Lhe crlme eg 13 uSC 902(d) lnLersLaLe shlpmenL of
flrearms Lo a known convlcLed felon and as speclflcally provlded from lmpeachmenL

lor comparable provlslons see unlform 8ule 63(20) Callfornla Lvldence Code 1300 kansas
Code of Clvll rocedure 60460(r) new !ersey Lvldence 8ule 63(20)

LxcepLlon (23) A hearsay excepLlon ln Lhls area was orlglnally [usLlfled on Lhe ground LhaL
verdlcLs were evldence of repuLaLlon As Lrlal by [ury graduaLed from Lhe caLegory of
nelghborhood lnquesLs Lhls Lheory losL lLs valldlLy lL was never valld as Lo chancery decrees
neverLheless Lhe rule perslsLed Lhough Lhe [udges and wrlLers shlfLed ground and began saylng
LhaL Lhe [udgmenL or decree was as good evldence as repuLaLlon See ClLy of London v Clerke
CarLh 181 90 Lng8ep 710 (k8 1691) nelll v uuke of uevonshlre 8 AppCas 133 (1882) 1he
shlfL appears Lo be correcL slnce Lhe process of lnqulry slfLlng and scruLlny whlch ls relled
upon Lo render repuLaLlon rellable ls presenL ln perhaps greaLer measure ln Lhe process of
llLlgaLlon Whlle Lhls mlghL suggesL a broader area of appllcaLlon Lhe afflnlLy Lo repuLaLlon ls
sLrong and paragraph paragraph (23) goes no furLher noL even lncludlng characLer

1he leadlng case ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes aLLerson v Calnes 47 uS (6 Pow) 330 399 12 LLd
333 (1847) follows ln Lhe paLLern of Lhe Lngllsh declslons menLlonlng as lllusLraLlve maLLers
Lhus provable manorlal rlghLs publlc rlghLs of way lmmemorlal cusLom dlspuLed boundary
and pedlgree More recenL recognlLlon of Lhe prlnclple ls found ln CranL 8ros ConsLrucLlon Co
v unlLed SLaLes 232 uS 647 34 SCL 432 38 LLd 776 (1914) ln acLlon for penalLles under
Allen ConLracL Labor Law declslon of board of lnqulry of lmmlgraLlon Servlce admlsslble Lo
prove allenage of laborers as a maLLer of pedlgree unlLed SLaLes v MldConLlnenL eLroleum
Corp 67 l2d 37 (10Lh Clr 1933) records of commlsslon enrolllng lndlans admlsslble on
pedlgree !ung ?en Loy v Cahlll 81 l2d 809 (9Lh Clr 1936) board declslons as Lo clLlzenshlp of
plalnLlffs faLher admlsslble ln proceedlng for declaraLlon of c|t|zensh|p Contra In re Lstate of
Cunha 49 naw 273 414 2d 92S (1966)