Consider the following scenario: a defendant is charged with falsely spreading a bomb scare at her school.At trial, The prosecution offers a...

Anne's statement that she overheard a student state a bomb
was planted and would go off soon is most likely admissible either as an excited
utterance (res gestae) or an admission against interest, each of which is an exception
to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the statement is most likely admissible under any
circumstances as it does not truly constitute hearsay. The hearsay rule only applies if
the statement made is introduced to prove its truth. Here, the statement was offered as
evidence not to prove that a bomb was in fact planted, but merely that the person made
the statement. In this instance, it does not constitute hearsay. Additionally, since the
defendant is the person charged with making the statement and is present, he/she has the
opportunity to refute the statement; therefore hearsay would not apply once
again.

Anne's previous statement to Police may be used to
impeach her testimony; but it does not make it inadmissible. Jacob's statement
is admissible, as Anne is present to deny or refute it. His comments about Anne's
expression again might be used to impeach her testimony.