Jeanette employs Catty and Kara at her Scrubby Bubbles & Bath store. Kara reports to Jeanette that she saw Catty stealing their "moonlight-scented" body scrub samples and putting them in her underwear. Livid, Jeanette fires Catty and brings a civil action against her for the value of the missing body scrub sample inventory. At the trial of the action, Jeanette calls Kara as the first witness. Kara states, 7 have no recollection regarding seeing Catty stealing from the store, or anything about the missing body scrub samples." Jeanette takes the stand, intending to testify about what Kara had originally told her. Assuming that Catty's attorney takes the appropriate action, Jeanette's testimony would be:A) Admissible, as a statement against interest by Catty.B) Admissible, as proper impeachment of Kara's testimony.C) Inadmissible, as irrelevant.D) Inadmissible hearsay, if offered to prove thefts by Catty.
Jeanette's testimony would be deemed hearsay if she tries to offer it as prove that Carry stole the body scrub samples and, thus, inadmissible. By definition, hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserteD) Here, Jeanette's statement is within the definition of hearsay, no exceptions to the hearsay rule apply, and the statement is inadmissible. Note: The statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule applies to statements from a person who is unavailable as a witness and are made against that person's pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest In the present case, we are not dealing with a statement against interest of the declarant Kara, regardless of the fact that Kara may be deemed unavailable (as she is refusing to testify). The statement of Kara in the present case is against the interest of Catty.Impeachment refers to the undermining of a believed truthfulness of a witness, which shows that a witness has (on another occasion) made statements that are inconsistent with a material part of her present testimony. Here, Kara is merely stating that she does not recall seeing Catty steal or noticing any body-scrub samples missing from the store, and has not made a contradictory statement in a prior proceeding. Generally speaking, Kara's testimony directed toward a lack of memory will generally not be considered to be an inconsistent statement. B is a potentially correct answer (depending on the jurisdiction) if a court believes that the witness is deliberately being evasive in her testimony. Note, however, that D is a better answer that addresses all jurisdictions and is, therefore, the correct answer to the present problem.C is incorrect. Jeanette's testimony is clearly relevant as it tends to make the existence of any consequential facts to the determination of an action more probable than it would be without that evidence. Even though this evidence is relevant, it runs afoul of the hearsay rules and, therefore, cannot be admitteD)A is wrong as a statement against interest, because the statement was not made by Catty, thereby, making the statement against interest exception inapplicable.