Also known as: layered-hearsay · double hearsay · hearsay within hearsay · hearsay on hearsay
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A composite out-of-court statement containing two or more nested assertions offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Each constituent statement must independently qualify under a hearsay exception or exclusion before the entire statement becomes admissible.
Leonard Lowe sues Valley Hospital after a delayed cancer diagnosis. Nurse Lopez testifies that Nurse Kim told her during shift change that the doctor had said the biopsy was negative and no further tests were needed. The court sustains the hearsay objection because neither Kim's statement to Lopez nor the doctor's earlier statement satisfies an exception.
Liam Larson sues Wild Canid Survival & Research Center after a wolf attack. A staff member testifies that the center's director told him an employee had reported the wolf's aggressive behavior earlier that day. The court admits the testimony after determining that both the employee's report and the director's repetition qualify as party-opponent statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Layered hearsay is admissible only when each separate statement in the chain independently satisfies a hearsay exception or exclusion. Rule 805 requires separate analysis of every layer rather than treating the composite statement as a single unit.
Supporting sources
The entire statement is excluded. Courts refuse to admit composite testimony when any single layer fails to qualify, even if other layers would otherwise be admissible.
Supporting sources
Each transmission must meet an exception such as excited utterance or statement for medical diagnosis. A final report made after the emergency has passed typically fails to qualify and blocks admission of the whole chain.
Supporting sources
A non-truth purpose such as showing notice or the content of an assurance removes the statement from hearsay analysis altogether. The proponent must clearly articulate that purpose at trial.
Supporting sources
…rule, it should be. He feels that is mandated by Rules 805 and 403. Rule 805 recites, in effect, that a statement containing hearsay within hearsay is admissible if each part of the statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. Rule 805, however, deals only with hearsay exceptions. A statement based on the personal knowledge…