Definitions

As used in this Article: (1) ‘‘Statement’’ means (A) an oral or written assertion or (B) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion. (2) ‘‘Declarant’’ means a person who makes a statement. (3) ‘‘Hearsay’’ means a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the proceeding, offered in evidence to establish the truth of the matter asserted. COMMENTARY (1) ‘‘Statement’’ The definition of ‘‘statement’’ takes on significance when read in conjunction with the definition of ‘‘hearsay’’ in subdivi- sion (3). The definition of ‘‘statement’’ includes both oral and written assertions; see Rompe v. King, 185 Conn. 426, 428, 441 A.2d 114 (1981); Cherniske v. Jajer, 171 Conn. 372, 376, 370 A.2d 981 (1976); and nonverbal conduct of a person intended as an assertion. State v. King, 249 Conn. 645, 670, 735 A.2d 267 (1999) (person nodding or shaking head in response to question is form of nonverbal conduct intended as assertion); see also State v. Blades, 225 Conn. 609, 632, 626 A.2d 273 (1993); Heritage Village Master Assn., Inc. v. Heritage Village Water Co., 30 Conn. App. 693, 702, 622 A.2d 578 (1993). The effect of this definition is to exclude from the hearsay rule’s purview nonassertive verbalizations and nonassertive, nonverbal conduct. See State v. Hull, 210 Conn. 481, 498–99, 556 A.2d 154 (1989) (‘‘[i]f the statement is not an assertion . . . it is not hearsay’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Thomas, 205 Conn. 279, 285, 533 A.2d 553 (1987) (‘‘[n]onassertive conduct such as running to hide, or shaking and trembling, is not hearsay’’). The definition of ‘‘statement’’ in Section 8-1 is used solely in conjunction with the definition of hearsay and the operation of the hearsay rule and its exceptions. See generally Art. VIII. The definition does not apply in other contexts or affect definitions of ‘‘statement’’ in other provisions of the General Statutes or the Practice Book. See, e.g., General Statutes § 53-441 (a); Practice Book §§ 13-1 and 40-15. (2) ‘‘Declarant’’ The definition of ‘‘declarant’’ is consistent with the long- standing common-law recognition of that term. See, e.g., State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 696 n.7, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S. Ct. 1017, 98 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1988); State v. Barlow, 177 Conn. 391, 396, 418 A.2d 46 (1979). Numerous courts have held that data generated by a computer solely as a product of a computerized system or process are not made by a ‘‘declarant’’ and, therefore, not hearsay. See, e.g., State v. Buckland, 313 Conn. 205, 216–21, 96 A.3d 1163 (2014) (agreeing with federal cases holding that ‘‘raw data’’ generated by breath test machine are not hearsay because machine is not declarant), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1078, 135 S. Ct. 992, 190 L. Ed. 2d 837 (2015); State v. Gojcaj, 151 Conn. App. 183, 195, 200–202, 92 A.3d 1056 (holding that making of computer generated log, which was created automatically to record date and time whenever any person entered passcode to activate or deactivate security system, was not ‘‘statement by a human declarant’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 314 Conn. 924, 100 A.3d 854 (2014); see also Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 564–65 (D. Md. 2007) (fax header was not statement by declarant). In certain forms, this type of computer generated information is known as ‘‘metadata.’’ The term ‘‘meta- data’’ has been defined as ‘‘data about data’’; (internal quota- tion marks omitted) Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co., supra, 547; and refers to computer generated information describing the history, tracking or management of electroni- cally stored information. See id. Gojcaj recognized that a party seeking to introduce computer generated data and records, even if not hearsay, must establish that the computer system reliably and accurately produces records or data of the type that is being offered. State v. Gojcaj, supra, 202–203 n.12. (3) ‘‘Hearsay’’ Subdivision (3)’s definition of ‘‘hearsay’’ finds support in case law. E.g., State v. Crafts, 226 Conn. 237, 253, 627 A.2d 877 (1993); State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299, 315, 613 A.2d 242 (1992); Obermeier v. Nielsen, 158 Conn. 8, 11, 255 A.2d 819 (1969). The purpose for which the statement is offered is crucial; if it is offered for a purpose other than to establish the truth of the matter asserted, the statement is not hearsay. E.g., State v. Esposito, supra, 315; State v. Hull, supra, 210 Conn. 498–99; State v. Ober, 24 Conn. App. 347, 357, 588 A.2d 1080, cert. denied, 219 Conn. 909, 593 A.2d 134, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 915, 112 S. Ct. 319, 116 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1991).