Evidence, Hearsay
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Kibodeaux, No. E2022-01445-CCA-R9-CD, p. 10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2023).
Trial courts must conduct layered inquiries when determining the admissibility of evidence objected to on the grounds of hearsay, and our standard of review varies accordingly. State v. Jones, 568 S.W.3d 101, 128 (Tenn. 2019). A trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations regarding a ruling on hearsay are binding on the appellate court unless the evidence preponderates against them. Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015) (citation omitted). Because a witness’s unavailability pursuant to Rule 804(a) involves questions of fact, a trial court’s determination regarding whether that witness is unavailable is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jones, 568 S.W.3d at 129 (citation omitted). “Once the trial court has made its factual findings, the next questions—whether the facts prove that the statement (1) was hearsay and (2) fits under one [of] the exceptions to the hearsay rule—are questions of law subject to de novo review.” Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 479 (citations omitted).
“Intertwined with the rules on the admissibility of hearsay is the constitutional right to confront witnesses.” Jones, 568 S.W.3d at 128. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Confrontation Clause essentially ensures the right to physically face witnesses and the right to cross-examine witnesses. State v. Lewis, 235 S.W.3d 136, 142 (Tenn. 2007) (citation omitted). The Tennessee Constitution likewise guarantees the accused the opportunity “to meet the witnesses face to face.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9.
The Confrontation Clause governs only testimonial hearsay, and it applies only to testimonial statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted. State v. Dotson, 450 S.W.3d 1, 63-64 (Tenn. 2014). Statements are testimonial when “the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” Id. at 64 (quotation omitted). The primary purpose is evaluated not from the subjective or actual intent of the persons involved but from the purpose reasonable participants would have had. Id. Whether the admission of hearsay statements violated a defendant’s confrontation rights is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Davis, 466 S.W.3d 49, 68 (Tenn. 2015) (citation omitted).
State v. Small, No. W2022-01349-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 28, 2023).
Whether a statement fits under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court:
The standard of review for rulings on hearsay evidence has multiple layers. Initially, the trial court must determine whether the statement is hearsay. If the statement is hearsay, then the trial court must then determine whether the hearsay statement fits within one of the exceptions. To answer these questions, the trial court may need to receive evidence and hear testimony. When the trial court makes factual findings and credibility determinations in the course of ruling on an evidentiary motion, these factual and credibility findings are binding on a reviewing court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them. Once the trial court has made its factual findings, the next questions – – whether the facts prove that the statement (1) was hearsay and (2) fits under one the exceptions to the hearsay rule – – are questions of law subject to de novo review.
Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015) (citations omitted).
State v. Jenkins, No. M2022-00693-CCA-R3-CD, p. 20-21 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2023).
On appeal, we typically review questions involving the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378, 392 (Tenn. 2008) (so recognizing in the context of Tenn. R. Evid. 804); State v. Mitchell, 343 S.W.3d 381, 389 (Tenn. 2011) (so recognizing in the context of Tenn. R. Evid. 403). However, with respect to hearsay in particular, this Court will defer to a trial court’s factual findings, but will review de novo “whether the facts prove that the statement (1) was hearsay and (2) fits under one [of] the exceptions to the hearsay rule[.]” State v. Jones, 568 S.W.3d 101, 128 (Tenn. 2019); State v. McGill, No. M2022-00501-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 2033804, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 16, 2023) (so recognizing in the context of Tenn. R. Evid. 804), no perm. app. filed.
Our supreme court has emphasized that “when making discretionary decisions, trial courts ‘must take the applicable law and the relevant facts into account.’” State v. Frausto, 463 S.W.3d 469, 481 (Tenn. 2015) (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). As we stated earlier, an abuse of discretion “occurs when the trial court ‘applies incorrect legal standards, reaches an illogical conclusion, bases its ruling on a clearly erroneous assessment of the proof, or applies reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.’” Johnson, 401 S.W.3d at 21 (quoting State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436, 443 (Tenn. 2010)).
State v. Brown, No. W2022-00156-CCA-R3-CD, p. 16 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 15, 2023).
A trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations relative to a hearsay issue are binding upon an appellate court unless the evidence preponderates against them. Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015). The determination of whether the statement in question is hearsay and whether a hearsay exception applies are questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Id.
State v. Tolliver, No. W2021-01386-CCA-R3-CD, p. 15 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2023).
A trial court’s decision of whether a particular statement is hearsay and whether a hearsay exception applies are questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015). A trial court’s factual findings and credibility findings relative to a hearsay issue are binding upon an appellate court unless the evidence preponderates against them. Id.
State v. Johnson, No. E2022-00302-CCA-R3-CD, p. 20-21 (Tenn. Ct Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2023).
A trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations relative to a hearsay issue are binding upon an appellate court unless the evidence preponderates against them. Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015). The determination of whether the statement in question is hearsay and whether a hearsay exception applies are questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Id.
State v. McGill, No. M2022-00501-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5-6 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 16, 2023).
The principal issue in this case concerns whether the trial court properly admitted hearsay evidence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804. Typically, we review questions involving the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Dotson, 254 S.W.3d 378, 392 (Tenn. 2008) (in the context of addressing Tenn. R. Evid. 804, recognizing that “questions concerning the admissibility of evidence rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not interfere in the absence of abuse appearing on the face of the record.”). However, “[t]rial courts must conduct layered inquiries when determining the admissibility of evidence objected to on the grounds of hearsay,” State v. Jones, 568 S.W.3d 101, 128 (Tenn. 2019), and the standard of review varies accordingly:
“Initially, the trial court must determine whether the statement is hearsay. If the statement is hearsay, then the trial court must then determine whether the hearsay statement fits within one of the exceptions. To answer these questions, the trial court may need to receive evidence and hear testimony. When the trial court makes factual findings and credibility determinations in the course of ruling on an evidentiary motion, these factual and credibility findings are binding on a reviewing court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them. Once the trial court has made its factual findings, the next questions—whether the facts prove that the statement (1) was hearsay and (2) fits under one [of] the exceptions to the hearsay rule— are questions of law subject to de novo review.”
Id. (quoting Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015)) (internal citations omitted and alterations in original).
Our supreme court has emphasized that “[d]iscretionary decisions must take the applicable law and relevant facts into account.” Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tenn. 2008). To that end, “‘an abuse of discretion occurs when a court strays beyond the applicable legal standards or when it fails to properly consider the factors customarily used to guide the particular discretionary decision.’” State v. McCaleb, 582 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tenn. 2019) (quoting Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 524 (Tenn. 2010)). “‘A court abuses its discretion when it causes an injustice to the party challenging the decision by (1) applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) reaching an illogical or unreasonable decision, or (3) basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” Moore v. Lee, 644 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tenn. 2022) (quoting Fisher v. Hargett, 604 S.W.3d 381, 395 (Tenn. 2020)).
State v. Holmes, No. E2021-01489-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 7, 2022).
Our supreme court has confirmed that “[t]he standard of review for rulings on hearsay evidence has multiple layers.” Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015). The “factual and credibility findings” made by the trial court when considering whether a statement is hearsay, “are binding on a reviewing court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them.” Id. (citing State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 759-61 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008)). “Once the trial court has made its factual findings, the next questions—whether the facts prove that the statement (1) was hearsay and (2) fits under one [of] the exceptions to the hearsay rule—are questions of law subject to de novo review.” Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 479 (citing State v. Schiefelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88, 128 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007); Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703, 721 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)); see also Gilley, 297 S.W.3d at 760 (stating that because “[n]o factual issue attends” the trial court’s determination whether a statement is hearsay, “it necessarily is a question of law”). “If a statement is hearsay, but does not fit one of the exceptions, it is inadmissible, and the court must exclude the statement. But if a hearsay statement does fit under one of the exceptions, the trial court may not use the hearsay rule to suppress the statement.” Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 479; see also Gilley, 297 S.W.3d at 760-61.
State of Tennessee v. Benitez, No. M2021-00073-CCA-R3-CD, p. 28 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022).
Whether a statement constitutes hearsay and whether it satisfies an exception to the hearsay rule are questions of law, which are reviewed de novo on appeal. State v. Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015).
State of Tennessee v. Perry, No. M2020-01407-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 22, 2022).
A trial court’s decision of whether a particular statement is hearsay and whether a hearsay exception applies are questions of law that are reviewed de novo. Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015). A trial court’s factual findings and credibility findings relative to a hearsay issue are binding upon an appellate court unless the evidence preponderates against them. Id.
State of Tennessee v. Donaldson, No. E2020-01561-CCA-R3-CD, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2022).
Our supreme court has confirmed that “[t]he standard of review for rulings on hearsay evidence has multiple layers.” Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450, 479 (Tenn. 2015). The “factual and credibility findings” made by the trial court when considering whether a statement is hearsay, “are binding on a reviewing court unless the evidence in the record preponderates against them.” Id. (citing State v. Gilley, 297 S.W.3d 739, 759-61 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008)). “Once the trial court has made its factual findings, the next questions—whether the facts prove that the statement (1) was hearsay and (2) fits under one [of] the exceptions to the hearsay rule—are questions of law subject to de novo review.” Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 479 (citing State v. Schiefelbein, 230 S.W.3d 88, 128 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007); Keisling v. Keisling, 196 S.W.3d 703, 721 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)); see also Gilley, 297 S.W.3d at 760 (stating that because “[n]o factual issue attends” the trial court’s determination whether a statement is hearsay, “it necessarily is a question of law”). “If a statement is hearsay, but does not fit one of the exceptions, it is inadmissible, and the court must exclude the statement. But if a hearsay statement does fit under one of the exceptions, the trial court may not use the hearsay rule to suppress the statement.” Kendrick, 454 S.W.3d at 479; see also Gilley, 297 S.W.3d at 760-61.
