Which statement is true about an admission by a party-opponent?

Which statement is true about an admission by a party-opponent?

• A. The statement is hearsay but admissible
• B. The statement is not hearsay and admissible
• C. The statement is not hearsay but inadmissible
• D. The statement is hearsay and inadmissible

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that statements made by a party against whom the statement is offered are not hearsay and are admissible as evidence against that party. This rule treats the party’s own words as reliable enough to be used for the truth of the matter asserted, since there is no reason to shield them under the hearsay rule. It covers the party’s own statements, statements adopted or authorized by the party, or statements by someone speaking on the party’s behalf, and can be used as substantive evidence. So, the statement is not hearsay and admissible. The other options mix up the status by suggesting hearsay or inadmissibility, which doesn’t apply to an admission by a party-opponent. For example, if the defendant says, “I did steal the money,” that statement can be admitted against the defendant as an admission by a party-opponent.

The key idea is that statements made by a party against whom the statement is offered are not hearsay and are admissible as evidence against that party. This rule treats the party’s own words as reliable enough to be used for the truth of the matter asserted, since there is no reason to shield them under the hearsay rule. It covers the party’s own statements, statements adopted or authorized by the party, or statements by someone speaking on the party’s behalf, and can be used as substantive evidence.

So, the statement is not hearsay and admissible. The other options mix up the status by suggesting hearsay or inadmissibility, which doesn’t apply to an admission by a party-opponent. For example, if the defendant says, “I did steal the money,” that statement can be admitted against the defendant as an admission by a party-opponent.