The party admission exception to hearsay includes which of the following?

• A. A statement of a party used against that party
• B. A statement by a party's agent within the scope of agency
• C. A statement by a co-conspirator after the crime
• D. A statement by a non-party witness

Answer: (B)

Under the hearsay rule, statements offered against a party opponent can be admitted as admissions. The most precise way this shows up is when a statement is made by someone connected to the party in a way that binds the party—namely, by a party’s agent acting within the scope of that relationship. When an agent speaks on behalf of the party about matters within the agency relationship, that statement is not hearsay and falls within the party admission category, so it can be used against the party who employed or controlled the agent.

That’s why the option describing a statement by a party’s agent within the scope of the agency is the best fit. A direct statement by the party itself is also an admission, but the agent-Within-scope formulation is the clearest, most precise illustration of how party admissions operate. The other possibilities don’t fit as cleanly: a co-conspirator’s statement is admissible only during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, and a statement by a non-party witness is generally hearsay.