Under Rule 801(d)(2), which statement best describes an opposing party's statement admissible as not hearsay?

Under Rule 801(d)(2), which statement best describes an opposing party's statement admissible as not hearsay?

• A. It was made by the party's agent on a matter outside the scope of the relationship.
• B. It was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• C. It was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• D. It was made by a witness while testifying.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that certain out-of-court statements are treated as not hearsay because they are considered as if the party themselves had said them. Under Rule 801(d)(2), a statement made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy falls into this category. When the conspirator spoke in furtherance of the scheme, the statement is admissible against the party opponent because it reflects the party’s own position or involvement in the conspiracy, and the jury can treat it as if the party had spoken the words themselves. For this to apply, there must be evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the declarant was a member who spoke while furthering that conspiracy. The other options don’t fit: a statement by the party’s agent on a matter outside the scope of the relationship isn’t covered by this rule; a witness testifying isn’t a party-opponent or coconspirator statement; and whether the evidence is offered to prove the truth doesn’t itself establish the not-hearsay basis.

The key idea is that certain out-of-court statements are treated as not hearsay because they are considered as if the party themselves had said them. Under Rule 801(d)(2), a statement made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy falls into this category. When the conspirator spoke in furtherance of the scheme, the statement is admissible against the party opponent because it reflects the party’s own position or involvement in the conspiracy, and the jury can treat it as if the party had spoken the words themselves. For this to apply, there must be evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the declarant was a member who spoke while furthering that conspiracy. The other options don’t fit: a statement by the party’s agent on a matter outside the scope of the relationship isn’t covered by this rule; a witness testifying isn’t a party-opponent or coconspirator statement; and whether the evidence is offered to prove the truth doesn’t itself establish the not-hearsay basis.