Which statement best captures the rule about hearsay within hearsay?

Which statement best captures the rule about hearsay within hearsay?

• A. Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if both parts have an exception
• B. Hearsay within hearsay is always excluded
• C. Hearsay within hearsay has no exceptions
• D. Hearsay within hearsay can be admitted regardless of exceptions

Answer: (A)

When dealing with hearsay inside hearsay, each layer of the statement must fit an exception or exemption in order for the whole thing to be admissible. In practice, that means the outer layer and the inner layer each need to be admissible on their own under the hearsay exceptions. If the inner layer has no exception, the whole statement is inadmissible, even if the outer layer would otherwise qualify. That’s why the correct rule is that hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if both parts have an exception. The other options contradict this foundational requirement, either suggesting universal exclusion, universal admission, or no exceptions, none of which align with how Rule 805 works.

When dealing with hearsay inside hearsay, each layer of the statement must fit an exception or exemption in order for the whole thing to be admissible. In practice, that means the outer layer and the inner layer each need to be admissible on their own under the hearsay exceptions. If the inner layer has no exception, the whole statement is inadmissible, even if the outer layer would otherwise qualify. That’s why the correct rule is that hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if both parts have an exception. The other options contradict this foundational requirement, either suggesting universal exclusion, universal admission, or no exceptions, none of which align with how Rule 805 works.