I recently read in the Nashville Bar Journal about a new change to the hearsay rules. This is what immediately came to mind. On any given day, I receive a call from my lovely wife about one of my five children who has been put on the witness stand for interrogation by my wife. The defendant child has either taken something that did not belong to them, invaded some other child’s personal space, or spewed out some dirty word. Inevitably, when I get home from work I am called in as the judge to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant child. In many instances, I will interrogate some of the other witness children about what occurred. Can you tell me which one is the traditional defendant? (Hint: bottom right.)
Under the former version of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, prior inconsistent statements of my witness children could only be used to impeach the witness child. However, effective July 1, 2009, Tennessee adopted Rule 803(26), a new exception to the hearsay rules. The Rule provides for the admission as substantive evidence the prior inconsistent statements of any non-party witnesses if certain reliability requirements are met. This goes further than the Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(a) and allows an additional way to admit inconsistent statements for their substantive value. In my own child criminal court, that means that the prior inconsistent statements of my six year old son can be used as substantive proof against the four year old defendant. You know momma is going to be happy with a conviction.
While this is not the majority rule among the jurisdictions, Tennessee is now among a number of jurisdictions that have adopted this modern approach. Again, Tennessee now allows for substantive proof the use of statements made in preliminary hearings, depositions, police investigations, or other recorded statements and interviews.
How does this affect your construction dispute? As with many other legal questions, the answer is: "It depends." It depends on your jurisdiction, the type of trial (judge or jury), and the type of construction dispute.
- If you are in a jurisdiction that has adopted the modern approach, which includes Tennessee, Colorado, Hawaii, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California or Montana, then prior inconsistent statements can be used substantively.
- A judge should be able to truly appreciate the difference between prior inconsistent statements used for impeachment versus used for substantive evidence.
- Finally, in a fact-driven construction disputes (as opposed to simple breach of contract matters or cases involving a battle of experts), this new evidence rule may come into play.
The real lesson to be learned from this rule change is to preserve pre-trial statements by all witnesses. For example, it is important to take witness statements immediately following a construction accident, failure of the installed work, or other significant event during project performance. In the event of litigation, the recorded statement can be used during trial as substantive proof.