Rules of Evidence Article 8

See Stormwind Rules of Evidence.

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article.
a. “Statement” means a person’s oral assertion, written assertion, or nonverbal conduct, if the person intended it as an assertion.

b. “Declarant” means the person who made the statement.

c. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
 * 1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
 * 2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

Rule 802. Statements That Are Not Hearsay.
a. A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement: b. An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
 * 1) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under oath; or
 * 2) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered:
 * 3) (a) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
 * 4) (b) to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground; or
 * 5) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.
 * 1) was made by the party;
 * 2) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;
 * 3) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;
 * 4) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or
 * 5) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Rule 803. Rule Against Hearsay.
Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise:

a. The Laws of Stormwind;

b. These rules; or

c. Other rules prescribed by the Justices of the Courts.

Rule 804. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay.
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

a. Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

b. Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

c. Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

d. Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that: e. ''Criminal Incident Reports. ''A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, if:
 * 1) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and
 * 2) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.
 * 1) the creation of the report is part of normal operating procedure and recordkeeping of the arresting agency,
 * 2) it is introduced into evidence by the arresting officer who created it, and
 * 3) the arresting officer is made available for cross-examination about it.

Rule 805. Exceptions to the Rule for Unavailable Declarant.
a. Criteria for Being Unavailable. A declarant is considered to be unavailable as a witness if the declarant: But this subdivision (a) does not apply if the statement’s proponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarant’s unavailability as a witness in order to prevent the declarant from attending or testifying.
 * 1) is exempted from testifying about the subject matter of the declarant’s statement because the court rules that a privilege applies;
 * 2) refuses to testify about the subject matter despite a court order to do so;
 * 3) testifies to not remembering the subject matter; or
 * 4) cannot be present or testify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical illness, or mental illness.

b. The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
 * 1) Former Testimony. Testimony that was given under oath as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a different one.
 * 2) Statement Under the Belief of Imminent Death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil case, a statement that the declarant, while believing the declarant’s death to be imminent, made about its cause or circumstances.
 * 3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
 * 4) (a) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and
 * 5) (b) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
 * 6) Statement Offered Against a Party That Wrongfully Caused the Declarant’s Unavailability. A statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused — or acquiesced in wrongfully causing — the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result.

Rule 806. Hearsay Within Hearsay.
Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule.

Rule 807. Attacking and Supporting the Declarant.
When a hearsay statement — or a statement described in Rule 802 — has been admitted in evidence, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. The court may admit evidence of the declarant’s inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the party against whom the statement was admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party may examine the declarant on the statement as if on cross-examination.