Which statement is true about hearsay?

• A. Hearsay requires the out-of-court statement to be offered for the truth of the matter asserted
• B. Hearsay is admissible whenever the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination
• C. Hearsay excludes all out-of-court statements if the declarant is a party
• D. Hearsay is defined as any statement made by a machine

Answer: (A)

Hearsay hinges on the idea that a statement made outside the current proceeding is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts. If you introduce an out-of-court statement to establish that the content is true, that’s hearsay, and it typically isn’t admissible unless a recognized exception or exclusion applies. So the statement that hearsay requires the out-of-court statement to be offered for the truth of the matter asserted captures the essential idea.

Why the other ideas aren’t accurate: simply having the declarant testify and be subject to cross-examination doesn’t automatically make hearsay statements admissible; many hearsay statements still fail unless an exception applies. Also, the rule is not about party status excluding all out-of-court statements, since party-opponent statements are often admissible for the truth. And hearsay is not defined as any statement made by a machine—the source isn’t what defines hearsay, it’s whether the statement was made out of court and offered for the truth of its contents.