Which option identifies the rule that addresses the admissibility of statements when the declarant is unavailable?

Which option identifies the rule that addresses the admissibility of statements when the declarant is unavailable?

• A. 804 (b)
• B. 805
• C. 1103
• D. 101

Answer: (A)

When the declarant is unavailable, the law makes specific exceptions to the hearsay rule so that important statements aren’t excluded just because the person who made them can’t testify. Those exceptions are grouped under a rule that creates admissibility for four main types of statements. First, former testimony. If the declarant testified at an earlier hearing, deposition, or similar proceeding, and the party against whom the testimony is offered had a fair opportunity to cross-examine, that testimony can be admitted. Second, dying declarations. In cases where the declarant believed death was imminent, a statement about the cause or circumstances of what they believed was impending death can be admitted, typically in homicide or civil cases. Third, statements against interest. A statement that was against the declarant’s own financial or penal interest at the time it was made, so it would be unlikely to be made unless true, can be admitted because it is inherently trustworthy in the circumstances. Fourth, forfeit by wrongdoing. If the party caused the declarant’s unavailability to prevent the witness from testifying, the statement may be admitted against that party. So the rule that addresses the admissibility of statements when the declarant is unavailable is the provision that lists these exceptions to hearsay for unavailable declarants.

When the declarant is unavailable, the law makes specific exceptions to the hearsay rule so that important statements aren’t excluded just because the person who made them can’t testify. Those exceptions are grouped under a rule that creates admissibility for four main types of statements.

First, former testimony. If the declarant testified at an earlier hearing, deposition, or similar proceeding, and the party against whom the testimony is offered had a fair opportunity to cross-examine, that testimony can be admitted.

Second, dying declarations. In cases where the declarant believed death was imminent, a statement about the cause or circumstances of what they believed was impending death can be admitted, typically in homicide or civil cases.

Third, statements against interest. A statement that was against the declarant’s own financial or penal interest at the time it was made, so it would be unlikely to be made unless true, can be admitted because it is inherently trustworthy in the circumstances.

Fourth, forfeit by wrongdoing. If the party caused the declarant’s unavailability to prevent the witness from testifying, the statement may be admitted against that party.

So the rule that addresses the admissibility of statements when the declarant is unavailable is the provision that lists these exceptions to hearsay for unavailable declarants.