Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if both instances meet what?

Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if both instances meet what?

• A. Only one instance meets an exception
• B. Both instances meet a hearsay exception
• C. Neither instance requires an exception
• D. The court must determine admissibility without exception

Answer: (B)

When there’s hearsay within hearsay, each layer of the chain must be independently justified. The rule against hearsay only applies to statements offered for their truth, and an out-of-court statement containing another out-of-court statement is made up of two hearsay layers. For the whole content to be admissible, each layer must fall within a hearsay exception (or otherwise be non-hearsay). If only one layer has an exception, the inner layer remains inadmissible for truth, so the entire statement cannot be admitted for that purpose. Therefore, the correct principle is that both instances must meet a hearsay exception. That’s why the best answer is that both layers meet a hearsay exception. The other options would fail to address the need for an exception at every level.

When there’s hearsay within hearsay, each layer of the chain must be independently justified. The rule against hearsay only applies to statements offered for their truth, and an out-of-court statement containing another out-of-court statement is made up of two hearsay layers. For the whole content to be admissible, each layer must fall within a hearsay exception (or otherwise be non-hearsay). If only one layer has an exception, the inner layer remains inadmissible for truth, so the entire statement cannot be admitted for that purpose. Therefore, the correct principle is that both instances must meet a hearsay exception. That’s why the best answer is that both layers meet a hearsay exception. The other options would fail to address the need for an exception at every level.