An Opposing Party’s Statement

(25) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. (D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. (E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. The statement may be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E). Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Comment Pa.R.E. 803(25) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(2), in that the word ‘‘must’’ in the last paragraph has been replaced with the word ‘‘may.’’ The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. The Federal Rules treat these statements as ‘‘not hearsay’’ and places them in F.R.E 801(d)(2). The traditional view was that these statements were hearsay, but admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence follow the traditional view and place these statements in Pa.R.E. 803(25), as exceptions to the hearsay rule—regardless of the availability of the declarant. This differing placement is not intended to have substantive effect. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. The statements in this exception were traditionally, and in prior versions of both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, called admissions, although in many cases the statements were not admissions as that term is employed in common usage. The new phrase used in the federal rules—an opposing party’s statement—more accurately describes these statements and is adopted here. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. The personal knowledge rule (Pa.R.E. 602) is not applicable to an opposing party’s statement. See Salvitti v. Throppe , 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942). Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Source The provisions of this Rule 803(25) adopted January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620.