No Fault Defender – A Defense Attorney's Perspective on New York No-Fault Law
By: Jason Tenenbaum
Hearsay – It really is not
People v Curran, 2013 NY Slip Op 00613 (4th Dept. 2013)
“We note that the victim’s testimony about her own out-of-court statements did not constitute hearsay and, therefore, application of the “prompt outcry” exception was not necessary for the admission of that testimony.”
I am not sure I ever saw an appellate court definitively state that the deponent’s own prior statements were not hearsay. I always thought that was the case, and the Appellate Division agreed.
2 Responses to “Hearsay – It really is not”
Leave a Reply
It is hearsay. A specific brand of hearsay called “prior consistent statement” or “bolstering.”
Would you just look at the definition of hearsay: An out of court statement made for the truth of the matter asserted.
Fits like a glove from what I can see about the statements.
Forget admission. An admission is an exception in NY and is not hearsay in Federal Court.
But as alluded to above you cannot bolster — in other words you cannot deem your own past statement as an admission.
Also an admission is a statment made by one party and can only utlized by the other party. Remember admissions apply to parties.
A victim of a crime cannot make an admission. A defendant can.
The decision is unclear and involved sexual assault — so I think we know what happened here and I cannot say I disagree with the outcome