Two conspirators agree to sell stolen property. One flees. The prosecutor offers the fugitive's spouse testimony that the fugitive repeated the defendant's money-owed statement. Is the testimony admissible?
Recommended code
33040301
Source code
33040301
Official key
C
Review status
seed candidate needs human review
Hearsay > Hearsay Exceptions > Requiring unavailability of declarant
Peter and his friend Daniel agreed to sell a rare manuscript they knew had been stolen from a university library. Daniel later disappeared and cannot be found. At Peter's trial for conspiracy to sell stolen property, the prosecutor calls Daniel's wife, Ruth, to testify that Daniel told her: Peter said I still owe him half the money from that manuscript sale. Ruth's testimony is
01 Start with the witness's testimony.
02 Split the double hearsay into two layers.
03 Layer one: Peter's statement to Daniel.
04 Use party-opponent treatment for Peter's own statement offered against Peter.
05 Layer two: Daniel's statement to Ruth.
06 Reject co-conspirator treatment because the statement was not in furtherance.
07 Use statement against interest because Daniel is unavailable and the statement hurts him.
08 Choose C.
A / trap
inadmissible, because Daniel's statement was not in furtherance of the conspiracy.
A spots that Daniel's casual statement to Ruth was not in furtherance of the conspiracy. The defect is stopping there; Daniel's layer can still come in as a statement against interest.
B / trap
inadmissible, because Daniel is not shown to have firsthand knowledge that the manuscript was stolen.
B invents a requirement. Daniel needed personal knowledge of the facts he asserted, and the money-owed statement itself exposed him to financial and penal risk.
C / correct
admissible, as evidence of a statement against interest by Daniel.
C clears both layers. Peter's statement is offered against Peter as a party-opponent statement, and Daniel's repetition is admissible because Daniel is unavailable and the statement was against his interest.
D / trap
admissible, as evidence of a statement by a party-opponent.
D is the dominant trap. Peter's inner statement fits party-opponent treatment, but Daniel's outer statement to Ruth was not made by a party and was not in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Red axis: Double hearsay is admissible only when each layer has its own exception or exemption.
Purple profile: The traps overextend party-opponent treatment, stop at the failed in-furtherance route, or invent a stolen-status knowledge requirement.
Blue signal: Daniel disappeared, and his statement tied him to money from the stolen manuscript sale.
Orange repair: Student habit to repair: treating one clean hearsay layer as if it clears the whole combined statement.
Gold Key / GK-EVIDENCE-DOUBLE-HEARSAY-LAYERS-01
For hearsay within hearsay, clear each layer separately; one admissible layer does not save the whole statement.
Gold Key / GK-EVIDENCE-NONPARTY-AGAINST-INTEREST-01
A nonparty declarant's damaging statement can come in as a statement against interest if the declarant is unavailable and the statement was against interest when made.
Trap Key / TK-EVIDENCE-CONSPIRACY-NOT-MAGIC
A co-conspirator's casual story to a third party is not a party-opponent statement unless it was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
01 Identify the two out-of-court statements.
02 Clear Peter's statement as Peter's own party-opponent statement.
03 Move to Daniel's statement to Ruth.
04 Reject party-opponent treatment for Daniel's layer.
05 Reject the in-furtherance objection as only one failed route.
06 Use statement against interest for Daniel's unavailable-damaging statement.
07 Ignore the fabricated stolen-status knowledge requirement.
08 Pick C.
Layer Split
A witness says, 'The defendant's partner told me the defendant said he still owes money from the deal.' What are the two hearsay layers?
The defendant's statement to the partner, and the partner's statement to the witness.
Nonparty Against Interest
When can a nonparty declarant's statement be admitted against a defendant?
When the declarant is unavailable and the statement qualifies as a statement against interest.
In Furtherance
A co-conspirator casually tells a spouse about a past crime. Does that satisfy the co-conspirator in-furtherance route?
No. Casual narrative to a third party is not made in furtherance of the conspiracy.