Hearsay Within Hearsay may be admissible if each component conforms with an exception.

Hearsay Within Hearsay may be admissible if each component conforms with an exception.

• A. Not excluded if each part conforms with an exception
• B. Automatic admissibility
• C. Always inadmissible
• D. Only applies to party-opponent statements

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that when a statement contains another out-of-court statement (hearsay within hearsay), both layers must fit an exception for the whole thing to be admissible. Rule 805 says the hearsay within hearsay is not excluded if each part conforms with an exception. So the outer statement must be admissible for its own reason, and the inner statement must also fall under a hearsay exception (or be admissible by some other rule). If either layer lacks an exception, the composite statement is excluded. This is why the best choice is the one that says it’s not excluded as long as each part conforms with an exception. It isn’t automatic admissibility, because you still have to show an applicable exception for both layers. It isn’t always inadmissible, since exceptions can make both layers lawful to admit. And it isn’t limited to party-opponent statements, since the rule applies to hearsay within hearsay regardless of who made the statements.

The key idea is that when a statement contains another out-of-court statement (hearsay within hearsay), both layers must fit an exception for the whole thing to be admissible. Rule 805 says the hearsay within hearsay is not excluded if each part conforms with an exception. So the outer statement must be admissible for its own reason, and the inner statement must also fall under a hearsay exception (or be admissible by some other rule). If either layer lacks an exception, the composite statement is excluded.

This is why the best choice is the one that says it’s not excluded as long as each part conforms with an exception. It isn’t automatic admissibility, because you still have to show an applicable exception for both layers. It isn’t always inadmissible, since exceptions can make both layers lawful to admit. And it isn’t limited to party-opponent statements, since the rule applies to hearsay within hearsay regardless of who made the statements.