What is a party's admission by a party-opponent, and how is it treated under the hearsay rules?

• A. Hearsay
• B. A statement by a party offered against that party; it is not hearsay
• C. Requires corroboration
• D. Cannot be used in court

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that a party’s admission by a party-opponent is treated as not hearsay. When a statement is made by a party and is offered against that same party to prove the truth of its content, it falls outside the hearsay rule as an admission. This reflects the idea that the party’s own words are inherently more reliable for purposes of binding that party, and the statement can be received as substantive evidence against them.

This admission can come in various forms, including spoken or written statements, or conduct that clearly asserts something. It covers direct statements by the party, adoptive admissions (where the party adopts someone else’s statement), and statements by the party’s agents or employees on matters within the scope of their agency or employment, as well as statements by co-conspirators made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Because of this, such statements are admissible for the truth of the matter asserted and are not excluded as hearsay.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: it’s not treated as hearsay, so calling it hearsay isn’t accurate; there isn’t a general requirement for corroboration to admit a party admission, and the rule clearly allows use in court rather than prohibiting it.