At least one case has ruled that a composite photograph taken by a police cartoonist is not hearsay, although this sketch is based on (and presumably reflects) extrajudicial descriptions of the author presented by other witnesses. See State v. Patterson, 332 N.C. 409 (1992) (compound sketch, based on eyewitness descriptions, was not hearsay – however, the state did not provide an adequate basis to demonstrate that the sketch accurately depicted the men who saw the witnesses); State v. Jackson, 309 N.C. 26 (1983) (stating that, when properly authenticated, „composite sketches and images are admissible to illustrate the testimony of a witness”); see also State v. Commodore, 186 N.C. App. 472 (2007) (unreported) (the photos in the phone book used by the victim to identify suspects were not hearsay).
Written, oral or non-verbal communication is a statement subject to hearsay rules only if the communication is intended to be an „affirmation”. See G.S. 8C-801(a). Therefore, statements that do not assert facts, such as questions („What time is it?”) or instructions („Get Out of Here”), may qualify as non-hearsay. See, for example, State v. Mitchell, 135 N.C. App. 617 (1999) (the inmate`s order to the respondent to „leave” or „hurry” was not hearsay: „[t]he directions, like those in this case, are not hearsay because they are merely offered to prove that the direction was given, not to prove the truth of a matter alleged in the direction.”); G. 8C-801, Official Commentary (states that „a preliminary decision is necessary to determine whether an allegation is intended”, but also with the note that „the rule is worded in such a way that the burden lies with the party who claims that the intention [to make an allegation] existed” and that „ambiguous and dubious cases against him and in favour of admissibility are resolved”); see also Staat v. Peek, 89 N.C. App.
123 (1988) (name and address written on an envelope were not hearsay because they were not intended to be a statement: „The conduct of the sender in addressing and dispatching the envelope undoubtedly implies that the sender believes that the addressee lives at that address. However, since no allegation is intended, the evidence is hearsay and admissible. In a broader sense, „hearsay” is testimony or document that quotes people who are not present in court. If the named person is not present, it becomes impossible to establish his credibility, as does cross-examination. Therefore, hearsay evidence is inadmissible. The new version of the rule requires judges to consider „the totality of the circumstances” in determining reliability, rather than relying on „equivalent safeguards” required in the previous version of the rule. It also explicitly allows the use of corroborating evidence to prove reliability. This tutorial will give you an overview of the search warrant, including your right to refuse a search, when a search warrant is not required and what to do if the police show up at your door. Hearsay is discussed in Section 3.2. There are several local peculiarities in its treatment. Section 59 defines the „fact” of a hearsay statement as something „the person may reasonably be presumed to have an intention to assert by representation.” The hearsay rule limits the potentially large number of claims it could cover from this broad definition of representation to intentional representations presented to prove the existence of the alleged facts.
In Lee v The Queen,[9] the term „representation” was used to refer to statements and behavior, and was used to encompass all of these statements, or this behavior would convey to the observer. A declarant`s statement is not excluded as hearsay under Rule 801 if it is not offered for the truth of the alleged thing (i.e., „the defendant did X”), but for other permissible purposes, such as explaining the defendant`s motive or describing the victim`s mental state (p. e.g., „I was afraid of the defendant because I heard he did X”). See, for example, State v. McLean, 251 N.C. App. 850 (2017) (witness` testimony that the prison guard told him that the accused was in a nearby cell was not hearsay because it was presented to explain why the witness was afraid to testify); State v. Castaneda, 215 N.C. App.
144 (2011) (statements made during detective`s interview with defendant about what other witnesses allegedly saw were not hearsay because they were made for the purpose of providing no context to the respondent`s answers and explaining the detective`s interrogation technique); State v. Braun, 350 N.C. 193 (1999) (victim impact statements about divorce were not made for the veracity of the case); State v. Davis, 349 N.C. 1 (1998) (statements on the release of the accused were made without hearsay to show motive); State v. Dickens, 346 N.C. 26 (1997) (recording of statements made in 911 Call was admissible to show that a call had taken place and that the accomplice was the appellant); State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462 (1992) (statement duly admitted as evidence of state of mind); Staat v. Tucker, 331 N.C.
12 (1992) („trial court wrongly excluded admission of statements because they were not hearsay or were admissible under an hearsay exception”); State v. Woodruff, 99 N.C. App. 107 (1990) („Clearly, these statements were not made to „prove the truth of the alleged thing.” This statement borders on frivolous. »); State v. Schnell, 323 N.C. 675 (1989) (the victim`s letter to the accused of murder and the testimony of the victim`s grandmother were not hearsay when offered to show that the motive for the victim`s murder was that she wanted to end their romantic relationship); Statement c.