hearsay rule in Pennsylvania

2026This Court has recently summarized: “Hearsay generally is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule delineated in the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 492 (Pa. 2020); see also Pa.R.E. 802 ([stating the] rule against hearsay).

2026“Hearsay generally is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule delineated in the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482, 492 (Pa. 2020); see also Pa.R.E. 802 (rule against hearsay). - 40 - J-A06017-26 does not prevent the officer who had the body camera from testifying about his observations at the scene, including identifying the odor of marijuana with a proper foundation, during his testimony at trial.

2020See Pronkoskie, supra. ____________________________________________ 2 We note that this argument would constitute a “special circumstance” in which prior bad acts evidence may be admitted under Pa.R.E. 404, rather than an exception to the hearsay rule under Pa.R.E. 801.

2000Res gestae is a “generic term encompassing four discrete exceptions to the hearsay rule: (1) declarations as to present bodily conditions; (2) declarations of present mental states and emotions; (3) excited utterances; and (4) declarations of present sense impressions.” Commonwealth v. Pronkoskie, 477 Pa. 132, 136-37 , 383 A.2d 858, 860 (1978) (footnote omitted). .

2024See Laich, supra. Thus, Culbreath was required to show that both Detective Price’s and Smith’s out-of-court - 20 - J-S21005-24 statements conformed to a hearsay exception for Culbreath to admit the written statement at trial.

2024See Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057, 1060 (Pa. 2001); Pa.R.E. 805 (hearsay within hearsay is not excluded if each part of a combined statement conforms with an exception to the rule); Commonwealth v. Savage, 157 A.3d 519 , 524- 25 (Pa. Super. 2017) (where business records that otherwise would be admissible under exception to hearsay rule contains hearsay, it is double hearsay, and underlying hearsay must also qualify as a hearsay exception for a court to admit that portion of the business record into evidence).

2000The Commonwealth further contends that the motorist’s statement is lacking the requisite indicia of reliability needed for admissibility pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because there is no evidence of record that the motorist actually witnessed the shooting. ¶ 16 For a hearsay statement to qualify as an excited utterance, the statement must be: “[a] spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that person had just participated in or closely witnes

2000The Commonwealth further contends that the motorist’s statement is lacking the requisite indicia of reliability needed for admissibility pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule because there is no evidence of record that the motorist actually witnessed the shooting. ¶ 16 For a hearsay statement to qualify as an excited utterance, the statement must be: “[a] spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occurrence, which that person had just participated in or closely witnes

2025Hearsay is “an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 186 A.3d 472, 480 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).

2024See Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 1176, 1185 (Pa. Super. 1994) (“In order to preserve an issue for review, a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial.”); Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). (explaining that issues that are not raised in the lower court “are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”); Commonwealth v. Lopata, 754 A.2d 685, 689 (Pa. Super. 2000). (“[a] claim which has not been raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). - 12 - J-S42035-23 “[H]earsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted and

2016"Exceptions have been fashioned to accommodate certain classes of hearsay that are substantially more trustworthy than hearsay in. general, and thus merit exception. to the hearsay rule." Commonwealth v. Bean, 677 A.2d 842, 844 (Pa. Super. 1996) (citations omitted); See also Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2015Exceptions have been fashioned to accommodate certain classes of hearsay that are substantially more trustworthy than hearsay in general, and thus merit exception to the hearsay rule.’” Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 559 (Pa. Super. 2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Bean, 677 A.2d 842, 844 (Pa. Super. 1996)). 13 “Hearsay evidence, admitted without objection, will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding . . . [i]f it is corroborated by any competent evidence in the record . . . .” Walker v. Unemployment Comp.

2025Exceptions have been fashioned to accommodate certain classes of hearsay that are substantially more trustworthy than hearsay in general, and thus merit exception to the hearsay rule.” Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 559 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

2025Exceptions have been fashioned to accommodate certain classes of hearsay that are substantially more trustworthy than hearsay in general, and thus merit exception to the hearsay rule.” Commonwealth v. Charlton, 902 A.2d 554, 559 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).

2025As our Supreme Court noted, “the out-of-court declarations of one co-conspirator can be admitted against another co-conspirator provided that the declarations were made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the common design.” Commonwealth v. Coccioletti, 425 A.2d 387, 392 (Pa. 1981); see also -8- J-S10042-25 Commonwealth v. Davis, 268 A.3d 428 (Pa. Super. 2021) (unpublished memorandum at *8).6 Soto does not address the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and thus does not dispute J.

2020In Commonwealth v. Coccioletti, 493 Pa. 103 , 425 A.2d 387 (1981), our Supreme Court found that testimony concerning the declarations of two co-defendants fell within the Pennsylvania co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

2025See Pa.R.E. 803(25)(A); see Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139, 1157-58 (Pa. 2006) (“[T]his Court has consistently held that a defendant’s out-of-court statements are party admissions and are exceptions to the hearsay rule.”).

2019Notes of Testimony, April 3, 2018, at p. 34; This objection was denied because the Defendant opened the door to the testimony as he had questioned the officer about whether Miss Geisinger introduced him. 9 As to the first objection, "in criminal cases, this Court has consistently held that a defendant's out-of-court statements are party admissions and are exceptions to the hearsay rule." Com. v. Edwards, 588 Pa. 151, 183 , 903 A.2d 1139, 1157-58 (2006) Therefore, Trooper Keppel's testimony as to the Defendant's conversation was properly admitted.

2024Our Supreme Court has long recognized that “[w]hen an extrajudicial statement is offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of its contents, it is not hearsay and is not excludable under the hearsay rule.” Commonwealth v. Puksar, 740 A.2d 219, 225 (Pa. 1999); accord Commonwealth v. Parker, 104 A.3d 17, 25 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“Generally, out[-]of[-]court statements by homicide victims are admissible when they are relevant to show proof of motive or malice.”).

2023Commonwealth v. Puksar, 740 A.2d 219, 225 (Pa. 1999).10 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously held that “[w]here a defendant seeks at trial to introduce his own statements made at the time of arrest to support his version of the facts, such testimony ____________________________________________ 9 Anders Brief at 14. 10Hearsay statements lack “guarantees of trustworthiness fundamental to the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 681 A.2d 1288, 1290 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). -9- J-S14021-22 is clearly offensive to the hearsay rule.” Benson, 10 A.3d at 1274-

2025“Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall under an enumerated exception.” Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 68 (Pa. 2012); Pa.R.E. 802. - 15 - J-S27033-25 Appellee argues, and the PCRA court ruled, that Claitt’s recantation is admissible under the hearsay exception for a statement against interest, which reads as follows: (b) Hearsay Exceptions.

2018Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594, 625 (Pa. 2008). “[A] prior consistent statement is always received for rehabilitation purposes only and not as substantive evidence.” Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 67 (Pa. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 869 (2013) (citation omitted). - 10 - J-S19040-18 Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803 provides exceptions to the hearsay rule, including the state of mind exception: Rule 803.

2014Exceptions to the hearsay rule are premised on circumstances surrounding the utterance which enhance the reliability of the contents of the assurances of cross-examination and oath[.] Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 731 A.2d 593, 595 (internal citations omitted).

2014"The hearsay rule provides that evidence of a dedarant's out-of-court statements is generally inadmissible because such evidence lack guarantees of trustworthiness fundamental to the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence." Comm . v. Chamberlain, 731 A.2d 593, 595 (Pa. 1999).

2018The record also shows that defense counsel had not filed a pre-trial motion in limine in order to make an offer of proof ____________________________________________ 3 See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973) (holding that “where constitutional rights directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt are implicated, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice”). -8- J-S82002-17 and to plead the admissibility of the hearsay testimony in advance of trial.

2017Under such unique circumstances, the Court held that “the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice.” Id. (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973)).

2003Present sense impressions qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule because they are “contemporaneous [ ] with the observation of the occurrence or condition.” Commonwealth v. Coleman, 458 Pa. 112, 117 , 326 A.2d 387, 389 (1974).

2003Present sense impressions qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule because they are “contemporaneous [ ] with the observation of the occurrence or condition.” Commonwealth v. Coleman, 458 Pa. 112, 117 , 326 A.2d 387, 389 (1974).

2026In Commonwealth v. Gore, 396 A.2d 1302, 1305 (Pa. Super. 1978), the court explained: The declaration need not be strictly contemporaneous with the existing cause, nor is there a definite and fixed term limit … Rather, each case must be judged on its own facts, and a lapse of time of several hours has not negated the characterization of a statement as an “excited utterance.” … The crucial question, regardless of time lapse is whether, at the time the statement is made, the nervous excitement continues to dominate while the reflective processes remain in abeyance.

1984For additional support we observe that it was held in Commonwealth v. Gore, 262 Pa.Superior Ct. 540, 396 A.2d 1302 (1978); and Commonwealth v. Dugan, 252 Pa.Superior Ct. 377, 381 A.2d 967 (1977) that even though statements were made several hours later than the incident which cause them to be made, they were still “spontaneous” for purpose to the exception to the hearsay rule.

2026Prior to the decision in Crawford, supra, “the United States Supreme Court was of the view the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of out-of-court statements that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or that bore a particularized guarantee of trustworthiness.” Brown, 185 A.3d at 324 , citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 40 and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980); see also Commonwealth v. Carter, 932 A.2d 1261 , 1265 n.3 (Pa. 2007).

2016Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), it was generally the view that “the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of out-of–court statements that fell within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (abrogated by Crawford).

2024Appellant’s Brief at 15-16 (citing Commonwealth v. Smith, 681 A.2d 1288, 1293 (Pa. 1996) (concluding that “the trial court abused its discretion in admitting [a] nurse’s testimony which repeated the [victim’s] statement as to the identity of [her] alleged abuser pursuant to the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule”)).

2023Commonwealth v. Puksar, 740 A.2d 219, 225 (Pa. 1999).10 The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously held that “[w]here a defendant seeks at trial to introduce his own statements made at the time of arrest to support his version of the facts, such testimony ____________________________________________ 9 Anders Brief at 14. 10Hearsay statements lack “guarantees of trustworthiness fundamental to the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 681 A.2d 1288, 1290 (Pa. 1996) (citation omitted). -9- J-S14021-22 is clearly offensive to the hearsay rule.” Benson, 10 A.3d at 1274-

2018"When a witness testifies that someone said something to him and the purpose is not to show that what was said was true but that the statement was made, the testimony is not hearsay but instead a 'verbal act.'" Commonwealth v. Jones, 543 A.2d 548, 550 (Pa. Super. 1988); Commonwealth v. Wright, 455 Pa. 480, 485 (Pa. 1974) ("The hearsay rule does not apply to all statements made to or overheard by a witness, but only those statements which are offered as proof of the truth of what is said."). 17 The Commonwealth presented Ms. Hail's testimony to establish that the phone number belonged to someon

1978In Commonwealth v. Wright, 455 Pa. 480, 485 , 317 A.2d 271, 273 (1974), we stated: “The hearsay rule does not apply to all statements made to or overheard by a witness, but only those statements which are offered as proof of the truth of what is said.” (Emphasis added.) In this case, the statement was not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i. e., that Cox would be dating Greenwood in the future.

2019Consequently, the medical records Dr. Berger and BCCYS relied upon herein were admissible as a hearsay exception under the Business Records Act. 18 “The same built-in reliability does not exist for medical opinions expressed in the hospital records.” Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 608 A.2d 515, 524 (Pa. Super. 1992).

2002In Primavera v. Celotex Corp., 415 Pa.Super. 41 , 608 A.2d 515, 519 (1992), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 533 Pa. 641 , 622 A.2d 1374 (1993), our Superior Court explained the rationale for this exception to the hearsay rule as follows: “The expert is assumed to have the mastery to evaluate the trustworthiness of the data upon which he or she relies, both because the expert has demonstrated his expert qualifications and because the expert regularly relies on and uses similar data in the practice of his or her profession.” However, an expert is not permitted to “repeat another’s opini

2024The Green decision states that “merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lead to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.” Green, 399 U.S. at 156 .

2024The Green decision states that “merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lead to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.” Green, 399 U.S. at 156 .

2024See Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057, 1060 (Pa. 2001); Pa.R.E. 805 (hearsay within hearsay is not excluded if each part of a combined statement conforms with an exception to the rule); Commonwealth v. Savage, 157 A.3d 519 , 524- 25 (Pa. Super. 2017) (where business records that otherwise would be admissible under exception to hearsay rule contains hearsay, it is double hearsay, and underlying hearsay must also qualify as a hearsay exception for a court to admit that portion of the business record into evidence).

2020Pa.R.E. 803(2). - 20 - J-S42042-20 Additionally, “[t]here is no set time interval following a startling event or condition after which an utterance relating to it will be ineligible for exception to the hearsay rule as an excited utterance.” Id., cmt; see also Commonwealth v. Carmody, 799 A.2d 143, 147 (Pa. Super. 2002) (stating that “there is no bright line rule regarding the amount of time that may elapse between the declarant’s experience and her statement.”).

2018The true basis of their admission, then, is necessity, because of which an exception to the hearsay rule is recognized[.] Begley, 780 A.2d at 623 , quoting Commonwealth v. Marshall, 135 A. 301, 304 (Pa. 1926).

2001The true basis of their admission, then, is necessity, because of which an exception to the hearsay rule is recognized____ Commonwealth v. Marshall, 287 Pa. 512, 522 , 135 A. 301, 304 (1926).

1998To come within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, a statement must be: “‘... a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occur rence, which that person had just participated in or closely witnessed, and made in reference to some phase of that occurrence which he perceived, and this declaration must be made so near the occurrence both in time and place as to exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in part from his reflective faculties.” Allen v. Mack, 345 Pa.

1998To come within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, a statement must be: “‘... a spontaneous declaration by a person whose mind has been suddenly made subject to an overpowering emotion caused by some unexpected and shocking occur rence, which that person had just participated in or closely witnessed, and made in reference to some phase of that occurrence which he perceived, and this declaration must be made so near the occurrence both in time and place as to exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in part from his reflective faculties.” Allen v. Mack, 345 Pa.

1984See Judge Walter's Opinion for the Court En Banc, 1-4-82, at 2-3. [3] We recognize that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of a declaration against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay rule in both Commonwealth v. Colon, 461 Pa. 577 , 337 A.2d 554 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056 , 96 S.Ct. 788 , 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976) and Commonwealth v. Nash, 457 Pa. 296 , 324 A.2d 344 (1974); however, neither opinion commanded the agreement of a majority of the court.

1984See Judge Walter's Opinion for the Court En Banc, 1-4-82, at 2-3. [3] We recognize that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of a declaration against penal interest as an exception to the hearsay rule in both Commonwealth v. Colon, 461 Pa. 577 , 337 A.2d 554 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056 , 96 S.Ct. 788 , 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976) and Commonwealth v. Nash, 457 Pa. 296 , 324 A.2d 344 (1974); however, neither opinion commanded the agreement of a majority of the court.