Answer

Hearsay Evidence

The rule against hearsay is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court unless otherwise allowed by a federal statute, the federal rules of evidence, or other rules as prescribed by the Supreme Court (Rule 801). Notably, hearsay consists of any out-of-court settlements, either in spoken words or documents, that are made in court and seek to prove the truth of matters being asserted. Notably, there are various exceptions to the rule against hearsay. One of those is that hearsay evidence may be admissible in court if a hearsay statement describes or provides an explanation of an event/condition made during the event in question or immediately after it (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Other exceptions include statements made under excitement or stress of the event or statements made under existing mental, physical, or emotional conditions.

Examining the case of Jim; accused of possessing stolen property, the evidence by Marissa is hearsay, because the statement “I bought this car from a dealership last year” is unreliable. In specific, there is no other witness who can corroborate such an assertion and thus the court cannot rely on such a statement made out of court. Such a statement becomes potentially unreliable because, there is no further evidence that can prove that such a statement was indeed made apart from the testimony by Marissa. Additionally, the statement was made the day before Jim was pulled over which then does not fall into the exception of the rules against hearsay. In specific, the exception only applies to statements made during the matter in question or immediately after and not those made a day before the matter in question (possession of stolen property). Irrespective of whether Jim knew the car was stolen or not, the testimony by Marissa is uncorroborated and thus a form of hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible in a court of law.