Washington’s Evidence Rule 805 addresses a nuanced evidentiary issue: hearsay within hearsay. This arises when an out-of-court statement contains another out-of-court statement, both offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under ER 805, each layer of hearsay must independently qualify under a recognized exception to be admissible.
What Constitutes Layered Hearsay?
An example of layered hearsay might involve a police officer testifying, “The witness told me that the victim said the suspect was armed.” The officer is recounting what the witness said, who is in turn recounting what the victim said. Both statements are out-of-court and must meet separate exceptions to avoid exclusion.
Exceptions to Nested Hearsay in Washington
Common exceptions that may apply include:
- Present Sense Impression (ER 803(a)(1)): Describing an event while perceiving it.
- Excited Utterance (ER 803(a)(2)): Made during or shortly after a startling event.
- Statements for Medical Diagnosis (ER 803(a)(4)): Provided for medical treatment.
- Business Records (RCW 5.45.020): Made in the regular course of business.
Each layer must fit one of these or other recognized exceptions. One inadmissible layer renders the entire statement inadmissible.
How Washington Courts Handle Embedded Statements
Courts scrutinize each layer of embedded hearsay for reliability and admissibility. Attorneys must clearly articulate the exception applicable to each statement. For example, if a medical report quotes a patient who references another person’s statement, both the patient’s and the third party’s comments must be justified under separate exceptions.
This scrutiny helps ensure that only reliable, vetted statements are considered by judges or juries.
Real-World Applications in Legal Proceedings
These layered statements frequently appear in domestic violence, fraud, and elder abuse cases. Understanding how ER 805 functions in these contexts is crucial for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Failure to satisfy the layered exception requirement can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence.
Additionally, explore our client resources here for more details on how we handle similar cases.
About Blanford Law:
At Blanford Law, we are committed to providing relentless, fair, and honest legal representation. With over 20 years of experience, Ken Blanford founded our firm on the belief that every client deserves respect and the best possible defense, free from assumptions or preconceived notions. If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges or has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, please contact us anytime at 253-720-9304 or email us at info@blanfordlaw.com.
Additional Resources
- Understanding ER 801: Definitions and the Role of Hearsay in Washington Law
Clarifies what qualifies as hearsay under ER 801 and why it matters in Washington courts.
https://blanfordlaw.com/understanding-er-801-definitions-and-the-role-of-hearsay-in-washington-law/ - Understanding ER 802: The Hearsay Rule in Washington State
Explains the general rule excluding hearsay and the rationale behind it.
https://blanfordlaw.com/understanding-er-802-the-hearsay-rule-in-washington-state/ - Washington State Rules of Evidence Guide
Comprehensive overview of Washington’s evidence rules, including hearsay and its exceptions.
https://blanfordlaw.com/washington-state-rules-of-evidence-guide/ - Exploring Washington ER 602: The Essential Guide to Personal Knowledge in Court Testimony
Discusses how personal knowledge is required for testimony under ER 602.
https://blanfordlaw.com/exploring-washington-er-602-the-essential-guide-to-personal-knowledge-in-court-testimony/