At a vandalism trial, Wolf testifies that the Second Little Pig said, 'My brother knocked my house down.' The Second Little Pig is not a witness. Is this hearsay?

At a vandalism trial, Wolf testifies that the Second Little Pig said, 'My brother knocked my house down.' The Second Little Pig is not a witness. Is this hearsay?

• A. Hearsay; inadmissible unless an exception applies
• B. Not hearsay because the declarant is not a witness
• C. Admissible as an excited utterance
• D. Admissible as an admission by a party opponent

Answer: (A)

The key idea here is hearsay—the question asks whether an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of its contents is admissible. Wolf testifies that the Second Little Pig told him, “My brother knocked my house down.” The Second Little Pig is not in court to testify, so this is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth. Hearsay rules require that such a statement be excluded unless a specific exception or exclusion applies. Nothing in the prompt confirms an applicable exception. An excited utterance could apply only if the statement were made under the stress of a startling event and the conditions show it was said while still under that excitement; the prompt doesn’t provide those facts. The admission by party opponent exception would make the statement admissible only if the Second Little Pig were a party to the case and the statement were offered against that party; that situation isn’t stated. So, the statement is hearsay and would be inadmissible unless an exception or exclusion applies.

The key idea here is hearsay—the question asks whether an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of its contents is admissible. Wolf testifies that the Second Little Pig told him, “My brother knocked my house down.” The Second Little Pig is not in court to testify, so this is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth.

Hearsay rules require that such a statement be excluded unless a specific exception or exclusion applies. Nothing in the prompt confirms an applicable exception. An excited utterance could apply only if the statement were made under the stress of a startling event and the conditions show it was said while still under that excitement; the prompt doesn’t provide those facts. The admission by party opponent exception would make the statement admissible only if the Second Little Pig were a party to the case and the statement were offered against that party; that situation isn’t stated.

So, the statement is hearsay and would be inadmissible unless an exception or exclusion applies.