hearsay rule in New Jersey

2026Defendants argue that, like in Bankston and State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338 (2005), these statements created an "inescapable inference" that the detectives had received incriminating information from a non-testifying source, thereby violating the hearsay rule and Confrontation Clause.

2026I, ¶ 10. "[B]oth the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule are violated when, at trial, a police officer conveys, directly or by inference, information from a non-testifying declarant to incriminate the defendant in the crime charged." Branch, 182 N.J. at 350 (citing Bankston, 63 N.J. at 268-69).

2026The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2) permits the admission of a statement "relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition and without opportunity to deliberate or fabricate." The rationale for the excited utterance exception is that "excitement suspends the declarant's powers of reflection and fabrication, consequently minimizing the possibility that the utterance will be influenced by self-interest and therefore rendered unreliable." State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316, 32

2026However, "if evidence is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence is not hearsay[,] and no exception to the hearsay rule is necessary to introduce that evidence at trial." State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 (2002).

2026When an officer provides reasons related to his or her actions in an investigation, the hearsay rule is not violated because the testimony is offered "to show 'the officer was not acting in an arbitrary manner or to explain his subsequent conduct.'" Medina, 242 N.J. at 413 (quoting Bankston, 63 N.J. at 268 ) ("[T]he hearsay rule is not violated when a police officer explains the reason he approached a suspect or went to the scene of the crime . . . .").

2026I, ¶ 10. "[B]oth the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule are violated when, at trial, a police officer conveys, directly or by inference, information from a non-testifying declarant to incriminate the defendant in the crime charged." Branch, 182 N.J. at 350 (citing Bankston, 63 N.J. at 268-69).

2020And, in light of the value it places on cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause prohibits the introduction of testimonial hearsay that does not meet “[a]n established and recognized exception to the hearsay rule,” Branch, 182 N.J. at 349 , and cannot 20 be challenged by a defendant through cross-examination, Basil, 202 N.J. at 591 ; accord Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-59 (2004).

2018Further, although the orders directed defendant to take certain actions, they never addressed defendant's intent or the circumstances of his non-compliance, and the content of the certifications A-3210-14T2 19 referenced in the November 4, 2010 order were not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.7 Even if the judge erred in taking judicial notice of the orders, the orders were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, which permits the introduction of a statement contained in a writing made by a public official of an act done by the official or an act, conditi

2025Our Supreme Court has long recognized "the declarations of a patient as to his [or her] condition, symptoms and feelings made to his [or her] physician for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment are admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule." Cestero v. Ferrara, 57 N.J. 497, 501 (1971).

2024N.J.R.E. 802. "[I]t has long been the rule in New Jersey that the declarations of a patient as to his [or her] condition, symptoms, and feelings made to his physician for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment are admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule." State v. Gonzales, 249 N.J. 612 , 636 (2022) (quoting Cestero v. Ferrara, 57 N.J. 497, 501 (1971)).

2022The right of confrontation, which is exercised through cross-examination, is "an essential attribute of the right to a fair trial." State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338, 348 (2005). 38 A-1340-18 "[B]oth the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule are violated when, at trial, a police officer conveys, directly or by inference, information from a non-testifying declarant to incriminate the defendant in the crime charged." Branch, 182 N.J. at 350 ; see also State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 151 (2014) (finding "testimony of a witness who directly or indirectly provides information derived from a non-test

2022"When evidence is admitted that contravenes not only the hearsay rule but also a constitutional right, an appellate court must determine whether the error impacted the verdict." State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 154 (2014) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1965)).

2025Notwithstanding the general proscription against hearsay evidence, "some exceptions to the hearsay rule have been made on the basis that 'the circumstances under which the statements were A-2708-21 15 made provide strong indicia of reliability.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508 (1984)).

2022The hearsay rule generally provides that "'[a] statement, made other than by the witness while testifying, offered to prove the truth of the content of the statement is hearsay evidence and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the hearsay exceptions.'" State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 402 (2002) (quoting State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508 (1984)).

2018A Citi vice-president reviewed the lost-note affidavit, a standard document effectively required by 3-309, and, as a person familiar with the business records Citi maintained, certified that the pre-requisites under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) to qualify it as a business record were met. 5 See State v. Matulewicz , 101 N.J. 27 , 29, 499 A.2d 1363 (1985) (recognizing the three well-established requirements for admitting evidence pursuant to the predecessor of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6), the business record exception to the hearsay rule: "First, the writing must be made in the regular course of business.

2018A Citi vice-president reviewed the lost-note affidavit, a standard document effectively required by 3-309, and, as a person familiar with the business records Citi maintained, certified that the pre-requisites under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) to qualify it as a business record were met. 5 See State v. Matulewicz , 101 N.J. 27 , 29, 499 A.2d 1363 (1985) (recognizing the three well-established requirements for admitting evidence pursuant to the predecessor of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6), the business record exception to the hearsay rule: "First, the writing must be made in the regular course of business.

2020As to the admissibility of D.O.'s statements to her mother and the video- recorded interview with Chesseri under the "tender years exception" to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), the trial judge noted that because D.O. was less than twelve years old at the time she made the statements to her mother and Chesseri, and because the prosecutor put defendant on notice of his intention to introduce the out-of-court statements and to call D.O. as a witness at trial, the only issue for the trial judge to determine was "whether, based on the time, content, and circumstances of D.O.'s statements, th

2007In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3145-46 , 111 L.Ed. 2d 638, 651 (1990), the United States Supreme Court determined that hearsay statements that fall within a hearsay exception, must also satisfy the requirements of the Confrontation Clause [2] .

2025R.S. v. Knighton, 125 N.J. 79, 87 (1991) (quoting K.

2025See R.S., A-1374-22 11 125 N.J. at 87-88 .

2022"When evidence is admitted that contravenes not only the hearsay rule but also a constitutional right, an appellate court must determine whether the error impacted the verdict." State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 154 (2014) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1965)).

2022"When evidence is admitted that contravenes not only the hearsay rule but also a constitutional right, an appellate court must determine whether the error impacted the verdict." State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 154 (2014) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1965)).

2020However, the hearsay exception for statements against interest does not require nor necessarily permit such inquiry. "'[E]xtrinsic circumstances bearing on the general reliability or trustworthiness of the declarant's statement' do not pertain to the admissibility of the statement, which instead must be determined on 'a statement's self-incriminating character' alone." State v. Williams, 169 N.J. 349, 359 (2001) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 240 (1999)).

2019Such a statement is admissible against an accused in a criminal action only if the accused was the declarant. [N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25).] The hearsay exception for statements against interest derives from “the theory that, by human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that would affect them unfavorably” and that, accordingly, “statements that so disserve the declarant are deemed inherently trustworthy and reliable.” Brown, 170 N.J. at 148 -49 (quoting White, 158 N.J. at 238 ); accord State v. Williams, 169 N.J. 349, 358-59 (2001); State v. Nevius, 426 N.J.

2020A-4238-17T4 21 The "tender years" exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), was created when the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized the "difficult problems of proof" regarding child-victim testimony in sexual abuse prosecutions, where the victim's testimony "is often the indispensable element of the prosecution's case." State v. Smith, 158 N.J. 376, 388-89 (1999) (quoting State v. D.R., 109 N.J. 348, 358 (1988)).

2018We determined that our evidence rules needed an additional "exception[ ] to the hearsay rule to authorize under certain conditions the admissibility of testimony relating the out-of-court statements of a child victimized by sexual abuse." Ibid.

2022There are several exceptions to the hearsay rule, which "are justified on the ground that 'the circumstances under which the statements were made provide strong indicia of reliability.'" White, 158 N.J. at 238 (quoting State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508 (1984)).

2020"Statements by a declarant that exculpate another, 'inferentially indicate[] his own involvement,' and are considered sufficiently against the declarant's penal interests to be admissible." State v. Norman, 151 N.J. 5, 31 (1997) (quoting State v. Davis, 50 N.J. 16 , 28- 29 (1967)); see also State v. White, 158 N.J. 230, 244 (1999) (holding statements exculpating a defendant are admissible "under the statement-against-interest A-0116-18T3 10 exception to the hearsay rule if, when considered in the light of surrounding circumstances, they subject the declarant to criminal liability or if, as a r

2026N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) provides that "[a] statement offered against a party who has engaged, directly or indirectly, in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness" is not "excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness." The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception "extinguishes a defendant's confrontation rights to keep a hearsay statement from the jury [only] when the defendant has procured the unavailability of a witness through his wrongful conduct." State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311, 335 (2011). "[T]he admission of evid

2009This appeal focuses on the tension between evidence admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause 1 concerns initially highlighted in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), as explained and amplified in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), and as interpreted and applied in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 , 943 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 158 , 172 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278 , 949 A.2d 761 (2008), and State in the Interest of J.A., 195 N.J. *456 324, 949

2025Super. 337, 349 (App. Div. 2016), and "a hearsay error only mandates reversal where that error drove a different result," citing Neno v. Clinton, 167 N.J. 573, 586 (2001).

2020In the context of a hearsay error, moreover, we will not reverse the trial court unless "the error led the [factfinder] to a result it otherwise might not have reached." Neno v. Clinton, 167 N.J. 573, 587 (2001) (quoting State v. Hightower, 120 N.J. 378, 410 (1990)).

2025Super. 391, 403 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Liptak v. Rite Aid, Inc., 289 N.J.

2025"The purpose of the business records exception is to broaden the area of admissibility of relevant evidence where there is necessity and sufficient guarantee of trustworthiness." Liptak v. Rite Aid, Inc., 289 N.J.

2025N.J.R.E. 803(a)(1) permits the admission of a declarant-witness's prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. "[E]xceptions to the hearsay rule 'are justified primarily because the A-2454-22 15 circumstances under which the statements are made provide strong indicia of reliability.'" State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 402 (2002).

2022The hearsay rule generally provides that "'[a] statement, made other than by the witness while testifying, offered to prove the truth of the content of the statement is hearsay evidence and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the hearsay exceptions.'" State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 402 (2002) (quoting State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508 (1984)).

2026The fresh complaint doctrine is an exception to the hearsay rule recognized by our Supreme Court that "allows witnesses in a criminal trial to testify to a victim's complaint of sexual assault." State v. Hill, 121 N.J. 150, 157-63 (1990).

2025The fresh complaint doctrine is an exception to the hearsay rule recognized by our Supreme Court that "allows witnesses in a criminal trial to testify to a victim's complaint of sexual assault." Hill, 121 N.J. at 151 .

2025A-2841-23 11 However, the Court has held a police report containing "factual statements, observations, and the officer's opinions" constituted "inadmissible hearsay outside the scope of the business records exception." State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 388-89 (2015); see also State v. Mosley, 232 N.J. 169, 191 (2018) ("A police report . . . prepared in the context of an investigation and recounting subjective events in a narrative form, is not a document that fits into any exception to the hearsay rule.").

2022Our Supreme Court has explained, however, that "police officers who draft reports have an interest in prosecuting defendants," and held, therefore, that a police report containing "factual statements, observations, and the officer's opinions" constituted "inadmissible hearsay outside the scope of the business records exception." State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 388-89 (2015); see also State v. Mosley, 232 N.J. 169, 191 (2018) ("A police report . . . prepared in the A-2811-19 32 context of an investigation and recounting subjective events in a narrative form, is not a document that fits into a

2025Under the rule, a hearsay statement may be admissible if it "so far tended to subject [the] declarant to civil or criminal liability . . . that a reasonable person in [the] declarant's position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true." N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25).5 The exception is premised on "the theory that, by human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that would affect them unfavorably," making such statements "inherently trustworthy and reliable." Rowe, 239 N.J. at 558 (quoting State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 148-49 (2001)). 5 The

2021The rationale for this exception to the hearsay rule “derives from ‘the theory that, by human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that would affect them unfavorably’ and that, accordingly, ‘statements that so disserve the declarant are deemed inherently trustworthy and reliable.’” Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531 , 558 (2019) (quoting State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 148-49 (2001)).

2021Though "witnesses may testify that they took certain investigative steps based 'upon information received[,]' . . . they cannot repeat specific details about a crime relayed to them by a . . . person without running afoul of the hearsay rule." State v. Luna, 193 N.J. 202, 217 (2007).

2020Thus, though "witnesses may testify that they took certain investigative steps based 'upon information received[,]' . . . [t]hey cannot repeat specific details about a crime relayed to them by a radio transmission or another person without running afoul of the hearsay rule." State v. Luna, 193 N.J. 202, 217 (2007) (citing State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263, 268-69 (1973)).

2020In the context of a hearsay error, moreover, we will not reverse the trial court unless "the error led the [factfinder] to a result it otherwise might not have reached." Neno v. Clinton, 167 N.J. 573, 587 (2001) (quoting State v. Hightower, 120 N.J. 378, 410 (1990)).

2020Neno, 167 N.J. at 587 (citing Hightower, 120 N.J. at 410 ); see also Hightower, 120 N.J. at 410 ("For a hearsay error to mandate reversal, '[t]he possibility [of an unjust verdict] must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263, 273 (1973))).

2026Importantly, "if evidence is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence is not hearsay and no exception to the hearsay rule is necessary to introduce that evidence at trial." State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 (2002) (citing State v. Chavies, 345 N.J.

2026Hearsay may not be admitted into evidence unless it falls within one A-1104-24 34 of the exceptions provided by the rules of evidence or "other law." N.J.R.E. 802. "[I]f evidence is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence is not hearsay and no exception to the hearsay rule is necessary to introduce that evidence at trial." State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 (2002) (citing State v. Chavies, 345 N.J.

2025Notwithstanding the general proscription against hearsay evidence, "some exceptions to the hearsay rule have been made on the basis that 'the circumstances under which the statements were A-2708-21 15 made provide strong indicia of reliability.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 508 (1984)).

2019Such a statement is admissible against an accused in a criminal action only if the accused was the declarant. [N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25).] The hearsay exception for statements against interest derives from “the theory that, by human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that would affect them unfavorably” and that, accordingly, “statements that so disserve the declarant are deemed inherently trustworthy and reliable.” Brown, 170 N.J. at 148 -49 (quoting White, 158 N.J. at 238 ); accord State v. Williams, 169 N.J. 349, 358-59 (2001); State v. Nevius, 426 N.J.

2025In doing so, the court relied on New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. N.T., 445 N.J.

2021We held the co-defendant's statements contained in reports and evaluations qualified under the hearsay exception for statements against interest because "the children could be removed." Id. at 498 (citing N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25)).

2018Importantly, we recognized that any new exception to the hearsay rule had to conform to the demands of the Confrontation Clause, which-in the pre- Crawford era-"required (1) availability of the declarant for cross-examination or a demonstration of unavailability, and (2) assurances of reliability." Id. at 366, 537 A.2d 667 ; see also Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).

2018Importantly, we recognized that any new exception to the hearsay rule had to conform to the demands of the Confrontation Clause, which-in the pre- Crawford era-"required (1) availability of the declarant for cross-examination or a demonstration of unavailability, and (2) assurances of reliability." Id. at 366, 537 A.2d 667 ; see also Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56 , 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).

2022Referencing the timestamp on the accident report, Ciarla testified at 10:16 p.m., one of the victims "came to headquarters to report that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident related to this carjacking incident." Because the victim gave the statement at headquarters, sometime after the incident had occurred, her description of defendant was based on the crime that had occurred earlier and did not qualify as a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(1); see also J.A., 195 N.J. at 340 .

2020In J.A., a non- testifying witness's description of the perpetrators and the direction in which they were walking, given to an officer approximately ten minutes after the crime was committed, id. at 337 , was admitted at trial as a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(1), 195 N.J. at 330-31, 337 .