A detective testifies about a defendant's statement during interrogation: 'I killed Henry.' How is this treated if offered to prove guilt?

A detective testifies about a defendant's statement during interrogation: 'I killed Henry.' How is this treated if offered to prove guilt?

• A. It is admissible as an admission by a party opponent
• B. It is inadmissible hearsay with no exception
• C. It is admissible as an excited utterance
• D. It is admissible as a business record

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that a party’s own statement offered to prove guilt is not excluded as hearsay. Under the rule for party admissions, a statement made by a party-opponent is not hearsay and is admissible against that party for any purpose, including proving guilt. Here, the defendant made the statement “I killed Henry,” and it is being offered against him in court. Even though the statement was made during interrogation, it still qualifies as an admission by a party opponent, so it can be admitted to show guilt. This isn’t about an excited utterance, which requires a spontaneous remark made under the stress of a startling event; the interrogation context doesn’t create an excited utterance here. It also isn’t a business record, which would require the statement to be part of a regularly kept business record. So those alternatives don’t fit, while the party-admission principle does.

The key idea is that a party’s own statement offered to prove guilt is not excluded as hearsay. Under the rule for party admissions, a statement made by a party-opponent is not hearsay and is admissible against that party for any purpose, including proving guilt. Here, the defendant made the statement “I killed Henry,” and it is being offered against him in court. Even though the statement was made during interrogation, it still qualifies as an admission by a party opponent, so it can be admitted to show guilt.

This isn’t about an excited utterance, which requires a spontaneous remark made under the stress of a startling event; the interrogation context doesn’t create an excited utterance here. It also isn’t a business record, which would require the statement to be part of a regularly kept business record. So those alternatives don’t fit, while the party-admission principle does.