hearsay rule in Wyoming

2002See also, Betzle v. State, 847 P.2d 1010, 1021 (Wyo.1993).

1997The United States Supreme Court has held that F.R.E. 803(4), which is identical to W.R.E. 803(4), represents a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule, Betzle, 847 P.2d at 1020 (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)), and therefore, admission of evidence pursuant to this rule does not violate the confrontation clause of the Constitution.

2017When we apply the definition of diagnosis and treatment required by our precedent, it is clear that Ms. Hoffman was engaged in the diagnosis and treatment of child abuse, and the district court reasonably concluded that the proper foundation had been established for her testimony. [¶30] In Goldade v. State, 674 P.2d 721, 727 (Wyo. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1253 , 104 S.Ct. 3539 , 82 L.Ed.2d 844 (1984), this Court held that the exception to the hearsay rule contained in Rule 803(4) is to be afforded a liberal interpretation in cases of child abuse because of “the manifest need to protect th

1984As to the first aspect of this contention by the appellant the question asked was: "Q What did he tell you about his family home life and his growing up experiences?" The appellant's position is that such testimony is admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule contained in Rule 803(4), W.R.E., which provides: "The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: * * * * * * "(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. — Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or

2003Johnson, 930 P.2d at 368 . [¶29] Recently, in Robinson , we found that hearsay statements were properly admitted under the “against penal interest” exception to the hearsay rule.

2000"Hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible; however, it can be received in evidence if it falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule found in the Wyoming Rules of Evidence and it bears sufficient indicia of reliability to avoid violation of the Confrontation Clause." Johnson v. State, 930 P.2d 358, 361-62 (Wyo.1996).

2023Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 963 (Wyo. 2000). [¶18] Mr. Munda challenges MD’s testimony that LM had told her of “some incidents of assault.

2017W.R.E. 803(4) (LexisNexis 2017). [¶26] The Rule 803(4) hearsay exception is rooted in “the likelihood that the declarant was motivated to tell the truth by the belief that the effectiveness of the treatment depended upon the accuracy of the information relayed.” McLaury v. State, 2013 WY 89, ¶ 10 , 305 P.3d 1144, 1146 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 961 (Wyo. 2000)).

2015Moore, ¶11, 313 P.3d at 508 (citing Sanders v. State, 7 P.3d 891, 895 (Wyo.2000); Johnson v. State, 930 P.2d 858, 361-62 (Wyo.1996)). [141] The State argued that Mr. Laster's statements were admissible under four hearsay exceptions: 1) as a present sense impression under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 803(1); 2) as an excited utterance under W.R.E. 803(2); 3) as a statement of then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition under W.R.E. 803(8); and 4), under the catchall provisions of W.R.E. 804(b)(6).

2015Moore, ¶ 11, 313 P.3d at 508 (citing Sanders v. State, 7 P.3d 891, 895 (Wyo. 2000); Johnson v. State, 930 P.2d 358 , 361–62 (Wyo. 1996)). [¶41] The State argued that Mr. Laster’s statements were admissible under four hearsay exceptions: 1) as a present sense impression under Wyoming Rule of Evidence 803(1); 2) as an excited utterance under W.R.E. 803(2); 3) as a statement of then-existing mental, emotional or physical condition under W.R.E. 803(3); and 4), under the catchall provisions of W.R.E. 804(b)(6).

1998W.R.E. 802 to 804; see also Owen v. State, 902 P.2d 190, 195 (Wyo.1995).

1997W.R.E. 802; Owen v. State, 902 P.2d 190, 195 (Wyo.1995).

2000Thus, if we can conclude that the challenged evidence was properly admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule then we must affirm its admission into evidence." Hopkinson, 632 P.2d at 129 .

2000Thus, if we can conclude that the challenged evidence was properly admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule then we must affirm its admission into evidence.” Hopkinson, 632 P.2d at 129 .

2016The district court admitted the testimony about the children's statements under W.R.E. 808(4), the exception to the hearsay rule for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, Rule 803 states: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: [[Image here]] (4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis - or - Treatment. -Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or

2002Stephens v. State, 774 P.2d 60, 72 (Wyo.1989).

2023“Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible because they are made outside of court and, therefore, presumed to be unreliable.” Blair v. State, 2022 WY 121, ¶ 18 , 517 P.3d 597, 601 (Wyo. 2022); W.R.E. 802. “‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” W.R.E. 801(c).

2023“Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible because they are made outside of court and, therefore, presumed to be unreliable.” Blair v. State, 2022 WY 121, ¶ 18 , 517 P.3d 597, 601 (Wyo. 2022); W.R.E. 802. “‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” W.R.E. 801(c).

2023See generally Blechman, 657 F.3d at 1066 (noting that information provided by a person outside the business could be received under the exception if someone in the business verified or assured the accuracy of that information and ruling that the record offered was inadmissible for failure to provide that verification); 2 McCormick on Evidence § 324.1; 2 McCormick on Evidence § 290 (8th ed. July 2022 Update). [¶168] Although the Hearing Panel erred in admitting exhibit 9 in its entirety, we find the error did not prejudice Ms. Manlove.

2023See generally Blechman, 657 F.3d at 1066 (noting that information provided by a person outside the business could be received under the exception if someone in the business verified or assured the accuracy of that information and ruling that the record offered was inadmissible for failure to provide that verification); 2 McCormick on Evidence § 324.1; 2 McCormick on Evidence § 290 (8th ed. July 2022 Update). [¶168] Although the Hearing Panel erred in admitting exhibit 9 in its entirety, we find the error did not prejudice Ms. Manlove.

2023Meyer v. Norman, 780 P.2d 283, 292 (Wyo. 1989). [¶163] The office manager’s written notes were admitted under the business records exception in W.R.E. 803(6), which provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: * * * (6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.

2023Meyer v. Norman, 780 P.2d 283, 292 (Wyo. 1989). [¶163] The office manager’s written notes were admitted under the business records exception in W.R.E. 803(6), which provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: * * * (6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.

2023Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 121 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016); 2 McCormick on Evidence § 324.1 (8th ed. July 2022 Update). [¶167] For the statements of the former office manager and the third party working outside the D.A.’s Office to be admissible under the business records exception, both parties must be “acting in the routine of the business.” 2 McCormick on Evidence § 324.1 (8th ed. July 2022).

2023Griggs v. State, 2016 WY 16, ¶ 121 , 367 P.3d 1108, 1142 (Wyo. 2016); 2 McCormick on Evidence § 324.1 (8th ed. July 2022 Update). [¶167] For the statements of the former office manager and the third party working outside the D.A.’s Office to be admissible under the business records exception, both parties must be “acting in the routine of the business.” 2 McCormick on Evidence § 324.1 (8th ed. July 2022).

2021See also, Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 21 , 191 P.3d 963, 970 (Wyo. 2008) (“[Declarant’s] statements to [State witness] Martinez would only be hearsay if they were being offered to prove the assertions being made by [the declarant]. . . .

2016The hearsay rule does not prohibit using the statements in that manner because it does not relate to proving the truth of those statements. 4 Mueller & Kirkpatrick, supra, § 8:20; see also Proffit, ¶ 21, 191 P.3d at 970 .

2014See also Hanson v. Belveal, 2012 WY 98, ¶¶ 52-53 , 280 P.3d 1186, 1201 (Wyo.2012) (a doctor’s statements do not fall within the hearsay exception in W.R.E. 803(4) which applies to statements made by the person seeking medical care); Alloway v. RT Capital, Inc., 2008 WY 123, ¶ 15 , 193 P.3d 713, 718 (Wyo.2008) (requirements for foundation to establish admissibility of a record of regularly conducted activities under W.R.E. 803(6)).

2014See also Hanson v. Belveal, 2012 WY 98, ¶¶ 52-53 , 280 P.3d 1186, 1201 (Wyo.2012) (a doctor’s statements do not fall within the hearsay exception in W.R.E. 803(4) which applies to statements made by the person seeking medical care); Alloway v. RT Capital, Inc., 2008 WY 123, ¶ 15 , 193 P.3d 713, 718 (Wyo.2008) (requirements for foundation to establish admissibility of a record of regularly conducted activities under W.R.E. 803(6)).

2000The trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under W.R.E, 803(4), citing as authority White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).

2000The trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under W.R.E, 803(4), citing as authority White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).

2021Moore v. State, 2013 WY 146, ¶ 11 , 313 P.3d 505, 508 (Wyo. 2013); W.R.E. 803.

2021Moore v. State, 2013 WY 146, ¶ 11 , 313 P.3d 505, 508 (Wyo. 2013); W.R.E. 803.

2021The hearsay rule does not prohibit using the statements in that manner because it does not relate to proving the truth of those statements.” Craft v. State, 2012 WY 166, ¶ 24 , 291 P.3d 306, 312 (Wyo. 2012) (citations omitted).

2021The hearsay rule does not prohibit using the statements in that manner because it does not relate to proving the truth of those statements.” Craft v. State, 2012 WY 166, ¶ 24 , 291 P.3d 306, 312 (Wyo. 2012) (citations omitted).

2000The exception was acknowledged and applied in Goldade v. State, 674 P.2d 721, 726 (Wyo.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1253 , 104 S.Ct. 3539 , 82 L.Ed.2d 844 (1984), and it has been applied or acknowledged in Blake, 933 P.2d at 480 ; Curl v. State, 898 P.2d 369, 376 (Wyo.1995); Betzle v. State, 847 P.2d 1010, 1017-18 (Wyo.1993); and Stephens, 774 P.2d at 72 .

1999W.R.E. 802; Blake v. State, 933 P.2d 474, 477 (Wyo.1997).

1994Finally, concerning the questioning of a declarant, this court has noted that "[t]he single question `what happened' has been held not to destroy the excitement necessary *207 to qualify under this exception to the hearsay rule." Matter of GP, 679 P.2d at 1003 (quoting Iron Shell, 633 F.2d at 86 ).

1994Finally, concerning the questioning of a declarant, this court has noted that “[t]he single question ‘what happened’ has been held not to destroy the excitement necessary to qualify under this exception to the hearsay rule.” Matter of GP, 679 P.2d at 1003 (quoting Iron Shell, 633 F.2d at 86 ).