Hearsay Exceptions: Availability Immaterial (FRE 803)

FRE 803(1), the present sense impression, admits a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made WHILE or immediately after the declarant perceived it. The reliability theory is contemporaneity — no time to fabricate. FRE 803(2), the excited utterance, admits a statement RELATING TO a startling event or condition made while the declarant was still under the stress of excitement that it caused. The theory is that stress stills the capacity for reflection.

Key contrasts: a present sense impression must be essentially contemporaneous and must DESCRIBE the event, whereas an excited utterance need only RELATE to the startling event and may come somewhat later so long as the declarant remains under stress. Both can be made by an unidentified bystander. MBE trap: a calm, considered statement made an hour after a car crash is unlikely to qualify as either; look for the stress (excited) or the immediacy (present sense).

FRE 803(3) admits a statement of the declarant's THEN-EXISTING state of mind (intent, plan, motive), emotion, sensation, or physical condition ('I feel sick,' 'I intend to fly to Crooked Creek'). A statement of present INTENT may be used to prove the declarant later carried out that intent (Mutual Life Insurance v. Hillmon). But the exception expressly EXCLUDES a statement of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed ('I think the brakes failed' cannot prove the brakes failed) — the one carve-out is a statement relating to the declarant's WILL.

FRE 803(4) admits statements made for, and reasonably pertinent to, medical DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT, describing medical history, past or present symptoms, or their inception or general cause when pertinent to treatment. Statements of FAULT or identity of the person responsible are usually NOT admissible (an exception exists for identifying an abuser in domestic-violence/child-abuse cases, because identity can be pertinent to treatment and safety).

FRE 803(5) recorded recollection admits a record that (a) is on a matter the witness once knew about, (b) was made or adopted when the matter was fresh in memory, and (c) accurately reflects that knowledge, where the witness now cannot recall well enough to testify fully; the record is READ into evidence and may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an ADVERSE party.

FRE 803(6) business records require: a record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis; made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity; where making the record was a regular practice; shown by a custodian or qualified witness (or a 902(11)/(12) certification) — UNLESS the source or method indicates a lack of trustworthiness. Records prepared in anticipation of litigation may be excluded as untrustworthy (Palmer v. Hoffman).

FRE 803(8) public records admit records setting out (i) the office's activities, (ii) matters observed under a legal duty to report (but NOT, in a CRIMINAL case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel offered against the accused), or (iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation. The prosecution cannot smuggle a police observation in via 803(6) to dodge 803(8)'s limit. FRE 803(18) admits learned treatises read into evidence (not as an exhibit) when relied on by an expert or established as authoritative.

Several 803 sub-rules carry tested wrinkles. The FRE 803(3) state-of-mind exception splits cleanly into permitted and forbidden uses: a statement of present INTENT proves the declarant later acted on that intent (Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon admitted 'I am going to Crooked Creek with Hillmon' to prove the declarant went), and may be used to prove the declarant's OWN subsequent conduct freely; using a Hillmon statement to prove a THIRD person's conduct ('to meet Dan') is contested and, under the House Report on the rule, should be limited.

But 803(3) flatly EXCLUDES a statement of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered ('I think the brakes failed' cannot prove the brakes failed), the single carve-out being a statement about the declarant's WILL. The 803(4) medical exception reaches statements made for and pertinent to diagnosis or treatment — symptoms, medical history, and the inception or general CAUSE of a condition — but generally NOT statements of fault or the identity of the wrongdoer, with a recognized exception in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases where identifying the abuser is pertinent to treatment and the victim's safety.

The 803(6) business-records and 803(8) public-records exceptions both contain a TRUSTWORTHINESS escape hatch: a business record is excluded if the source or method indicates a lack of trustworthiness (Palmer v. Hoffman excluded an accident report prepared primarily for litigation rather than railroad operations), and a public record's factual findings yield if circumstances indicate untrustworthiness.

The criminal-case limits interlock: FRE 803(8)(A)(ii) bars, against the accused, a matter OBSERVED by law-enforcement personnel, and FRE 803(8)(A)(iii) confines investigative factual findings to civil cases or to use AGAINST the government in a criminal case — and the prosecution may NOT smuggle a barred police observation in through the business-records exception. Work three hypotheticals. First, EXCITED UTTERANCE: minutes after a collision, a still-shaking bystander blurts 'the red truck ran the light' — admissible under 803(2) because the declarant remains under the stress of the startling event, even though her identity is unknown.

Second, BUSINESS RECORD with embedded hearsay: a hospital chart noting 'patient states he was struck by a forklift' is admissible as the record (803(6)) but the embedded patient statement needs its own basis — here 803(4) medical treatment supplies it. Third, PUBLIC-RECORD bar: an officer's incident report of his own observations, offered by the prosecution against the defendant, is barred by 803(8)(A)(ii) and cannot be rerouted through 803(6).

California diverges sharply: CEC 1240 mirrors the excited utterance but CEC 1241's contemporaneous-statement rule is narrower (it must explain the declarant's OWN conduct while engaged in it), California has NO broad present-sense-impression exception and NO freestanding medical-diagnosis exception (such statements enter via spontaneous-statement, admission, or expert-basis routes), and CEC 1271/1280 track business and official records though CEC 1280 dispenses with a live custodian.

Key FRE 803 Exceptions and California Counterparts

California's spontaneous-statement rule, CEC 1240, corresponds to the excited utterance and is broadly comparable. But CEC 1241, the contemporaneous-statement exception, is much NARROWER than FRE 803(1): it admits a statement only if it was made while the declarant was engaged in conduct AND it explains or qualifies the declarant's OWN conduct — California has no general present-sense-impression exception for a statement merely describing an observed event.

CEC 1250 admits statements of the declarant's then-existing state of mind/emotion/physical sensation when that state is itself in issue or to prove subsequent conduct, while CEC 1251 covers a PRIOR state of mind when the declarant is unavailable; CEC 1252 excludes such statements made under circumstances indicating lack of trustworthiness. California has NO general medical-diagnosis/treatment exception equivalent to FRE 803(4) — such statements often enter via the spontaneous-statement rule, party admissions, or expert-basis testimony.

CEC 1271 (business records) and CEC 1280 (official records) track the federal rules but CEC 1280 lets official records be admitted without a live custodian.