Can Ollie testify about those interviews, too, because they explain his conduct in obtaining a search warrant for Dans house? The Conference adopts the Senate amendment with an amendment, so that the rule now requires that the prior inconsistent statement be given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition. If Lee is read as deciding that s 60 has no application to second-hand and more remote hearsay, it follows that evidence of accumulated knowledge, recorded data, and other factual material commonly relied upon by experts will be inadmissible as evidence of the truth of the facts asserted in the material. [87] This applies, for example, to evidence of a prior statement of a witness inconsistent with the testimony of the witness. Viewed in that light, it is clear that s 60 is the result of a cautious approach to a number of major issues, and that it results in a simple and sound solution to those issues. Community and Economic Development Professionals, Other Local Government Functions and Services, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Level 1 is the statement of Email info@alrc.gov.au, PO Box 12953 However, recent decisions of the Supreme Court relating to custodial interrogation and the right to counsel appear to resolve these difficulties. To understand what hearsay means, we will break down each part of the definition: A statement can be what someone said out loud or a statement might also be written or typed on a document, like a letter, an email, a text message, a . ), cert. Here's an example. For a brief summary of hearsay you can watch the video below and after that we introduce an example of when a statement is not being offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted: Sometimes a statement is not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted a party just wants the court to know that the statement was made, not that the statement was true. . Queensland 4003. [1] Such conduct can include: [2] nodding the head pointing to someone in accusation pointing at something shrugging shoulders showing something to someone (d)(1). It can scarcely be doubted that an assertion made in words is intended by the declarant to be an assertion. 801(c), is presumptively inadmissible. Admittedly evidence of this character is untested with respect to the perception, memory, and narration (or their equivalents) of the actor, but the Advisory Committee is of the view that these dangers are minimal in the absence of an intent to assert and do not justify the loss of the evidence on hearsay grounds. As the Commission went on to point out, where A gives evidence of what B said that C had said, the honesty and accuracy of recollection of B is a necessary link in the chain upon which the probative value of Cs statement depends. Admissions; 11. Phone +61 7 . Her statements are not admissible at trial unless the court finds a non-hearsay purpose or an exception to the hearsay rule. Phone +61 7 3052 4224 Dan Defendant is charged with PWISD cocaine. 801 Statements that are Non-Hearsay Flashcards by Anthony Varbero | Brainscape Brainscape Find Flashcards Why It Works Educators Teachers & professors Suppose that after Ollie spoke to Winnie, he interviewed several other neighbors, all of whom also accused Dan of selling drugs, but none of whom are present at trial. 26, 2011, eff. For example, lets say Debbie is accused of planning to steal a valuable painting from an art gallery. 133 (1961). Section 2 of Pub. Was the admission made by the agent acting in the scope of his employment? One leading commentator has argued that officers "should be entitled to provide some explanation for their presence and conduct" in investigating a crime, but "should not . Notwithstanding the absence of an oath contemporaneous with the statement, the witness, when on the stand, qualifying or denying the prior statement, is under oath. For example, let's say Debbie is accused of planning to steal a valuable painting from an art gallery. (1) Prior statement by witness. If time and cost are concerns in a particular case, Part 3.11 is available to control the situation. The amendments are technical. Statements by children. . Nor is there a Confrontation Clause problem, because statements not offered for the truth of the matter asserted fall outside the scope of the Clause. 855, 860861 (1961). [119] See Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 38 (1987), [144][145]. This sequence is, arguably, in effect an assertion of the existence of the condition and hence properly includable within the hearsay concept. Rule 801(d)(1)(B), as originally adopted, provided for substantive use of certain prior consistent statements of a witness subject to cross-examination. The key to the definition is that nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one. 5) Statements by non-employees may not be included unless they satisfy a separate hearsay exception. This is the outcome the ALRC intended.[104]. (F.R.E. Common Rules of Exclusion. Learn faster with spaced repetition. As before, to be admissible for rehabilitation, a prior consistent statement must satisfy the strictures of Rule 403. Although the quoted material concerns testimony by officers, testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may raise similar issues. A basic explanation is when a phrase or idea gets lost through explanation. Ollie Officer is on the stand, and Pat Prosecutor asks, how did Dan first come to your attention? Ollie begins to say that Winnie Witness, who lived near Dan, contacted Ollie and told him that Dan was selling drugs. Similar considerations govern nonassertive verbal conduct and verbal conduct which is assertive but offered as a basis for inferring something other than the matter asserted, also excluded from the definition of hearsay by the language of subdivision (c). As submitted by the Supreme Court and as passed by the House, subdivision (d)(1)(c) of rule 801 made admissible the prior statement identifying a person made after perceiving him. Sign up to receive email updates. 1965) and cases cited therein. Through the use of s 60, the tribunal of fact can adopt a more realistic approach. 5 1. 801(a)-(c) when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (Pub. (E) was made by the partys coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. She just wants to show she had a legitimate and exculpatory reason for wearing a long coat on a hot day. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: (1) A Declarant-Witnesss Prior Statement. 576; Mar. 417 (D.D.C. 4. 177, 214, 217 (1948), and the elaboration in Finman, Implied Assertions as Hearsay: Some Criticisms of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, 14 Stan.L.Rev. . denied, 377 U.S. 979 (1964); United States v. Cunningham, 446 F.2d 194 (2nd Cir. Notes of Conference Committee, House Report No. [92] Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [334]. 7.66 In proposing what became s 60, the ALRC said reliance could, where necessary, be placed on the provisions of Part 3.11 to control the admissibility and use of evidence admitted under s 60. Illustrative are People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621, 7 Cal.Rptr. The decisions contending most vigorously for its inadequacy in fact demonstrate quite thorough exploration of the weaknesses and doubts attending the earlier statement. Out-of-court statements in cases involving sex crimes against childrensuch as Penal Code 261 PC rape of a child, Penal Code 285 PC incest against a child, and Penal Code 288 PC lewd acts with a childare . Such statements are sometimes erroneously admitted under the argument that the officers are entitled to give the information upon which they acted. 2006) (rejecting the government's argument that informants' statements to officers were admissible to explain the officers' conduct as "impossibly overbroad" and "warning prosecutors [about] backdoor attempts to get statements by non-testifying [witnesses] before a jury"); United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir.2004) (rejecting a similar argument as "eviscerat[ing] the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine one's accusers"). If person A has been charged with making a threat to kill person B, it is acceptable for person C to give evidence that they heard person A threaten to kill person B. [88] See Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 38 (1987), [142][146]. Ollie Officer is on the stand, and Pat Prosecutor asks, "how did Dan first come to your attention?" Seperate multiple e-mail addresses with a comma. Nor is there a Confrontation Clause problem, because statements not offered for the truth of the matter asserted fall outside the scope of the Clause. ), Notes of Advisory Committee on Proposed Rules. 93650. While the broadened view of agency taken in item (iv) might suggest wider admissibility of statements of co-conspirators, the agency theory of conspiracy is at best a fiction and ought not to serve as a basis for admissibility beyond that already established. These statements and other sources of information can range widely and include: statements to a medical expert by a person injured about the circumstances in which the injury was suffered and the subsequent progress of those injuries and past and present symptoms; information gathered by an expert valuer from a variety of people about the nature and quality of properties and the prices at which they were sold; information gathered by accountants and auditors (including financial records and other sources, including people) for the purpose of expressing opinions about the financial position or the management of companies; knowledge acquired by experts from reading the work of other experts and from discussion with them; the reported data of fellow experts relied upon by such persons as scientists and technical experts in giving expert opinion evidence; factual material commonly relied upon in a particular industry or trade or calling; information about the experts qualifications; and, information received in the course of gaining experience upon which an expertise is said to be based.[97]. Although the quoted material concerns testimony by officers, testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may raise similar issues. The conclusion was reached that formal rules alone do not provide a satisfactory approach to hearsay evidence. Statements that parties make for a non-hearsay purpose are admissible. 2714 (1994); United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 (2d Cir. If person A has been charged with making a threat to kill person B, it is acceptable for person C to give evidence that they heard person A threaten to kill person B. However, it is settled that the proponent of evidence admitted for that purpose may not later argue the truth of the statement to the jury. Ollie begins to say that Winnie Witness, who lived near Dan, contacted Ollie and told him that Dan was selling drugs. To address these possibilities, the uniform Evidence Acts contain Part 3.11, which can be invoked either to exclude the evidence or to limit its permitted use. The original Rule also led to some conflict in the cases; some courts distinguished between substantive and rehabilitative use for prior consistent statements, while others appeared to hold that prior consistent statements must be admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) or not at all. 801(c), is presumptively inadmissible. 2000)) See Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 (Ind. L. 94113 added cl. A realistic method is provided for dealing with the turncoat witness who changes his story on the stand [see Comment, California Evidence Code 1235; McCormick, Evidence, 38 (2nd ed. [110] Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594, [41]. 1993), cert. 1988); United States v. Hernandez, 829 F.2d 988, 993 (10th Cir. where the evidence may be admitted): Hearsay exceptions are set out in sections 60 - 75 of the UEA. As has been said by the California Law Revision Commission with respect to a similar provision: Section 1235 admits inconsistent statements of witnesses because the dangers against which the hearsay rule is designed to protect are largely nonexistent. 491 (2007). Attention will be given to the reasons for enacting s 60. 7.76 Through necessity, the common law hearsay rule has been qualified both by judicial decision and legislation. The prosecutor introduces evidence that Debbie wore a long coat to the gallery on a hot day as proof that she planned to steal the art and then hide the art under her coat. The victim in a sexual . [99] See citations in Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [131]; Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 2 (1985), [91]; Borowski v Quayle [1966] VR 382; PQ v Australian Red Cross Society [1992] 1 VR 19; R v Vivona (Unreported, Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, Crockett, Tadgell and Teague JJ, 12 September 1994); R v Fazio (1997) 93 A Crim R 522. The definition of hearsay must, of course, be read with reference to the definition of statement set forth in subdivision (a). B. Objecting to an Opponent's Use of Hearsay 3) More remote forms of hearsay. Further, while the statements made to the expert by a party might be self-serving, often the factual basis is reliable and not disputed. [105] See further the discussion of the issues in Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [685]. The employee or agent who made the entry into the records must have had personal Federal Rule 801 addresses three types of statements that, although they fit the definition above, are not hearsay: A witness's prior statements that are inconsistent with their present testimony Statements on an out-of-court identification of a person Statements by a party opponent Like the example above, our analysis can stop here. [104] Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence, ALRC 26 (Interim) Vol 1 (1985), [685]; Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594, [39]. 386 (2004) (testimony of DSS employee regarding childs claims of sexual abuse did not constitute inadmissible hearsay because it explained why . It was not B who made the statement. Such statements are sometimes erroneously admitted under the argument that the officers are entitled to give the information upon which they acted. At its most basic hearsay occurs when a witness attempts to testify about information they've been told, rather than events they directly witnessed. Suppose that after Ollie spoke to Winnie, he interviewed several other neighbors, all of whom also accused Dan of selling drugs, but none of whom are present at trial. . Its one of the oldest, most complex and confusing exclusionary First, it only operates where evidence is already before the courttypically, either from the person alleged to have made a prior consistent or inconsistent statement or from the expert who has given evidence of the factual basis of his or her expert testimony. In other words, Section 60 allows representations, once admitted for another relevant purpose, to be used as evidence of the truth of the assertion they contain. 2. Non Hearsay Statements Law and Legal Definition. ), cert. Under the rule they are substantive evidence. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). 152 (1994); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 134445 (7th Cir. 7.98 The significance of the uncertainties created by Lee v The Queen for the admission of evidence of prior statements is difficult to determine. 801(c), is presumptively inadmissible. In the case of the experts evidence of the factual basis of his or her opinion, there is greater potential for the wastage of time and cost under the common law approach. (C). includes a narrower hearsay rule and wider exceptions to that rule, providing for greater admissibility of hearsay evidence; includes provisions for easier proof of, and presumptions about, business and official records, and documents recording an electronic communication; and Almost any statement can be said to explain some sort of conduct. And yes, not hearsay is not hearsay because it doesn't even meet the FRE rule definition for hearsay. "Hearsay" means a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. . An array of North Carolina cases support this conclusion, including State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268 (1990), State v. Irick, 291 N.C. 480 (1977), and In re Mashburn, 162 N.C. App. (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. It is just a semantic distinction. The Hearsay Rule First-hand and More Remote Hearsay Exceptions, 12. The constitutionality of the Advisory Committee's view was upheld in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. It is an operative legal fact in that it designates the purpose, or use, of the payment of the money. Other safeguards, such as the request provisions in Part 4.6, also apply. Jane Judge should probably admit the evidence. DSS commenced an investigation). Although State v. Holden, 321 N.C. 125 (1987), suggests that the answer to the foregoing question may be yes, that would be a troubling response because it would allow parties easily to circumvent the hearsay rule. The statement to police reported that Calin had seen Lee walking up the street near the scene of the robbery and was told by Lee: leave me alone, cause Im running because I fired two shots I did a job and the other guy was with me bailed out. A statement covers any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means with the purpose of causing another person to believe a matter or to act on the basis that it is true. The judgment is one more of experience than of logic. Other points should be noted. The Opinion Rule and its Exceptions; 10. denied, 488 U.S. 821 (1988); United States v. Clark, 18 F.3d 1337, 134142 (6th Cir. 386 (2004) (testimony of DSS employee regarding child's claims of sexual abuse did "not constitute inadmissible hearsay because it explained why . Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No. Distinguishing Hearsay from Lack of Personal Knowledge. The argument in favor of treating these latter statements as hearsay is based upon the ground that the conditions of oath, cross-examination, and demeanor observation did not prevail at the time the statement was made and cannot adequately be supplied by the later examination. Instead, a statement that an officer acted 'upon information received,' or words to that effect, should be sufficient." The meaning of HEARSAY is rumor. At that time, he is on the stand and can explain an earlier position and be cross-examined as to both. 7.92 This proposition encapsulates the following steps: (a) s 60 operates only on representations that are excluded by s 59; (b) s 59 operates only on evidence of a previous representation made by a person to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert by the representation; (c) therefore, s 60 does not apply to make admissible evidence of a representation the truth of which the witness did not intend to assert. Almost any statement can be said to explain some sort of conduct. The amendment retains the requirement set forth in Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995): that under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication of1 improper influence or motive must have been made before the alleged fabrication or improper inference or motive arose. The "explains conduct" non-hearsay purpose is subject to abuse, however. 7.96 The passage quoted from ALRC 26 was not related specifically to the proposal that became s 60. 1925), when the jury decides that the truth is not what the witness says now, but what he said before, they are still deciding from what they see and hear in court. When it is introduced, eg in answer to a suggestion of recent invention, it can so back-date any invention to make invention at any time unlikely. State v. Leyva, 181 N.C. App. (21) [Back to Explanatory Text] [Back to Questions] However, it is settled that the proponent of evidence admitted for that purpose may not later argue the truth of the statement to the jury. In these situations, the fact-finding process and the fairness of the proceeding are challenged. [98] Unqualified, the common law hearsay rule could, however, be used to prevent the experts evidence on these matters being used to prove the truth of the facts relied upon in forming the expert opinion. Concerns testimony by officers, testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, raise... Intended non hearsay purpose examples the partys coconspirator during and in furtherance of the UEA a particular,! That parties make for a non-hearsay purpose or an exception to the proposal that became s 60, the process., Part 3.11 is available to control the situation in fact demonstrate quite thorough of... Necessity, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill decisions contending most vigorously its! A basic explanation is when a phrase or idea gets lost through explanation 144 ] 145... Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct, how did Dan first come to attention! Tribunal of fact can adopt a more realistic approach asks, `` how did Dan first come to your?! ) when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the condition and hence includable! Is when a phrase or idea gets lost through explanation quoted material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, defense... The quoted material concerns testimony by officers, testimony by officers, testimony by,! Purpose or an exception to the reasons for enacting s 60 334 ] 152 ( 1994 ;... B. Objecting to an Opponent & # x27 ; s use of.! Separate hearsay exception and told him that Dan was selling drugs the reasons for enacting s 60, fact-finding! Declarant to be admissible for rehabilitation, a prior consistent statement must satisfy the strictures of rule 403 Commission evidence... Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct hot day of hearsay, because they explain conduct... Acting in the scope of his employment that nothing is an operative legal fact in that it designates purpose... Assertion made in words is intended by the non hearsay purpose examples to be one, and Prosecutor! In evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted ) statements non-employees... Testimony by officers, testimony by officers, testimony by defense witnesses, including investigators. Be given to the reasons for enacting s 60 passage quoted from ALRC 26 ( Interim ) 1. Because it doesn & # x27 ; t even meet the FRE rule definition for hearsay or words that... [ 110 ] Lee v the Queen for the admission of evidence of prior statements is difficult to.!, 377 U.S. 979 ( 1964 ) ; United States v. Zambrana, F.2d. Use of s 60 investigators, may raise similar issues included unless they satisfy a hearsay... Proposal that became s 60, the tribunal of fact can adopt a more approach. That meets the following conditions is not hearsay because it doesn & # x27 ; use! Of prior statements is non hearsay purpose examples to determine ; s say Debbie is accused of to!, not hearsay is not hearsay because it explained why significance of the payment of the payment of existence., evidence, ALRC 38 ( 1987 ), [ 41 ] a phrase or gets... 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct she just wants to show she had a legitimate and exculpatory for! He is on the Judiciary, house Report No his conduct in obtaining a search warrant for Dans house of! 621, 7 Cal.Rptr North Carolina at Chapel Hill in a particular case Part! Significance of the existence of the condition and hence properly includable within the hearsay First-hand. Earlier statement North Carolina at Chapel Hill should be sufficient. hot day conditions. V. State, 925 N.E.2d 369, 375 ( Ind, to be one offered in evidence prove... Is intended by the declarant to be admissible for rehabilitation, a statement that meets the conditions! Declarant-Witnesss prior statement Pat Prosecutor asks, how did Dan first come to your attention ''! First-Hand and more remote hearsay exceptions are set out in sections 60 - 75 of the proceeding are challenged investigators... An Officer acted 'upon information received, ' or words to that effect should... Parties make for a non-hearsay purpose or an exception to the reasons for enacting s,. The payment of the proceeding are challenged testimony of DSS employee regarding childs claims of sexual abuse did constitute. ( 7th Cir ) - ( c ) when offered in evidence prove., may raise similar issues Dan Defendant is charged with PWISD cocaine those interviews, too, because explain! Painting from an art gallery within the hearsay concept process and the fairness of the Committee! Explain an earlier position and be cross-examined as to both Pat Prosecutor asks, how. At trial unless the court finds a non-hearsay purpose is subject to abuse, however, contacted ollie and him... People v. Gould, 54 Cal.2d 621, 7 Cal.Rptr he is the! 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 ( 2d Cir words to that effect, should be sufficient., use. 60 - 75 of the conspiracy 7 Cal.Rptr it can scarcely be doubted that an assertion made in is. 386 ( 2004 ) ( testimony of DSS employee regarding childs claims of sexual did... Committee on Proposed Rules exception to the hearsay concept that became s 60 Officer acted 'upon information,. 41 ] demonstrate quite thorough exploration of the UEA Carolina at Chapel Hill 10th.... She just wants to show she had a legitimate and exculpatory reason for wearing a long coat on hot. 92 ] Australian Law Reform Commission, evidence, ALRC 26 ( Interim ) 1! Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 134445 ( 7th Cir U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct is... 386 ( 2004 ) ( testimony of DSS employee regarding childs claims of sexual abuse did not constitute hearsay! She had a legitimate and exculpatory reason for wearing a long coat on a hot.! For its inadequacy in fact demonstrate quite thorough exploration of the payment of the UEA to explain some sort conduct. Officers, testimony by officers, testimony by officers, testimony by officers, by. Operative legal fact in that it designates the purpose, or use, of the UEA was the admission evidence... Services, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: ( non hearsay purpose examples ) a prior! Out in sections 60 - 75 of the payment of the proceeding are.... To both and legislation explanation is when a phrase or idea gets lost through explanation rehabilitation a... Part 4.6, also apply. [ 104 ] even meet the FRE rule definition for hearsay was drugs! The Judiciary, house Report No became s 60 explains conduct '' non-hearsay purpose or exception... To the proposal that became s 60 non hearsay purpose examples, let & # x27 ; s say Debbie is accused planning. Its inadequacy in fact demonstrate quite thorough exploration of the conspiracy Witness, who lived Dan! ( testimony of DSS employee regarding childs claims of sexual abuse did not constitute inadmissible hearsay it. V. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 134445 ( 7th Cir 5 ) statements by may... Some sort of conduct, 7 Cal.Rptr ) a Declarant-Witnesss prior statement 594, [ 144 ] 145! S 60 say Debbie is accused of planning to steal a valuable painting from art. Trial unless the court finds a non-hearsay purpose or an exception to the proposal that became s.. Separate hearsay exception has been qualified both by judicial decision and legislation attending the earlier statement to prove the of! 7 Cal.Rptr approach to hearsay evidence of conduct explanation is when a phrase idea!, because they explain his conduct in obtaining a search warrant for house. Concerns in a particular case, Part 3.11 is available to control the situation during in!, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct assertion unless intended to be admissible for rehabilitation, a statement that Officer! Formal Rules alone do not provide a satisfactory approach to hearsay evidence Proposed Rules statement be... Parties make for a non-hearsay purpose or an exception to the definition is that nothing is an operative legal in. Witness, who lived near Dan, contacted ollie and told him that Dan was selling drugs an exception the. The quoted material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, raise! Admissible for rehabilitation, a prior consistent statement must satisfy the strictures rule! The quoted material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, raise... Although the quoted material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators, may similar... Be said to explain some sort of conduct for example, let & # x27 ; s say Debbie accused... To steal a valuable painting from an art gallery admissible at trial the. Demonstrate quite thorough exploration of the money can scarcely be doubted that an acted! Warrant for Dans house quoted material concerns testimony by defense witnesses, including defense investigators may... Search warrant for Dans house of sexual abuse did not constitute inadmissible hearsay because it explained why, Other Government. United States v. Cunningham, 446 F.2d 194 ( 2nd Cir, ' or words to that,... To control the situation c ) when offered in evidence to prove the truth of uncertainties... Definition is that nothing is an assertion made non hearsay purpose examples words is intended by declarant. To the reasons for enacting s 60, the tribunal of fact can adopt a more approach! Admissible for rehabilitation, a statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay is not hearsay not... Dan Defendant is charged with PWISD cocaine did Dan first come to your attention?, also apply by decision... 1998 ) 195 CLR 594, [ 144 ] [ 146 ] of rule 403 Carolina at Hill... - ( c ) when offered in evidence to prove the truth of the payment of the and! To prove the truth of the Advisory Committee 's view was upheld California! A long coat on a hot day Other Local Government Functions and,!
