Res gestae (Latin: "things done") is a term found in substantive and procedural American jurisprudence and English law. In American substantive law, it refers to the start-to-end period of a felony. In American procedural law, it refers to a former exception to the hearsay rule for statements made spontaneously or as part of an act. The English and Canadian version of res gestae is similar, but is still recognized as a traditional exception to the hearsay rule.
In certain felony murder statutes, res gestae is a term defining the overall start-to-end sequence of the underlying felony. Generally, a felony's res gestae is considered terminated when the suspect has achieved a position of relative safety from law enforcement.[1]
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, res gestae may formerly have been, but is no longer, an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else (e.g., by the witness, who will later repeat the statement to the court), and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Statements that could be admitted into evidence as res gestae fall into three headings:
Words or phrases that either form part of, or explain, a physical act;
Exclamations that are so spontaneous as to belie concoction; and
Statements that are evidence of someone's state of mind.
The present sense impression, excited utterance, and then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition hearsay exceptions, respective to the above headings, now cover many situations under the Federal Rules of Evidence that would formerly have been considered res gestae.[2]
In some jurisdictions, the res gestae exception has also been used to admit police sketches.[3]
The following scenario is an example of types 1 and 2: Imagine a young woman (the witness) standing on the side of a main road. She sees some commotion across the street. On the opposite side of the road to her, she sees an old man and hears him shout, "The bank is being robbed!", as a young man runs out of a building and away down the street. The old man is never found (and so cannot appear in court to repeat what he said), but the woman repeats what she heard him say. Such a statement would be considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence because the statement was made concurrently with the event, and there is little chance that the witness repeating the hearsay could have misunderstood its meaning or the speaker's intentions.
Res gestae in American propensity evidence law
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, res gestae may also be used to demonstrate that certain character evidence, otherwise excludable under the provisions of Rule 404, is permissible, as the events in question are part of the "ongoing narrative", or sequence of events that are necessary to define the action at hand.[4]
The common law res gestae exception has been preserved under the statutory hearsay regime in s118(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.[5]
Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—
(a) the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,
(b) the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
(c) the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).
Categories (a) and (c) are the most commonly used.[6] The American formulation of "excited utterances" is broadly akin to the English category of "emotionally overpowering".[7]
When considering whether to admit hearsay evidence through the res gestae, case law strongly advises judges to consider whether "the possibility of concoction or distortion [can] be disregarded".[8]
There has been significant criticism of the exception by judges and legal academics. In 1997, the Law Commission argued that the primary use of it was to allow evidence from unavailable witnesses (including those who were deceased or in fear of testifying)—their proposal for a hearsay exception for this specific reason became section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Given the existence of this, "it is difficult to see what useful purpose was served by retaining this group of exceptions to the hearsay rule, because they add little if anything to what is already provided by section 116" argues Professor JR Spencer.[9]
Other uses
Res gestae is also used to refer to those facts or things done which form the basis or gravamen for a legal action.
Res gestae is also used in the context of the doctrine of respondeat superior, or the law of vicarious liability. Particularly, res gestae refers to time, place, and in the interest of an employer.[10]
↑ Spencer, John R. (2014). Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings (2ed.). Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Paragraph 9.27. ISBN978-1-84946-463-5.
↑ Richberger v. American Exp. Co., 73 Miss. 161, 171, 18 So. 922, 923 (1896); Lange v. National Biscuit Co., 297 Minn. 399, 211 N.W.2d 783 MINN 1973, Ravel Law.
↑ "Res Gestae". Indiana State Bar Association. Retrieved September 28, 2016.
Related Research Articles
An affidavit is a written statement voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation which is administered by a person who is authorized to do so by law. Such a statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings.
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."
Nolo contendere is a type of legal plea used in some jurisdictions in the United States. It is also referred to as a plea of no contest or no defense. It is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty. A no-contest plea means that defendants refuse to admit guilt but accept punishment as if guilty, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.
Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.
The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.
A present sense impression, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person that conveys his or her sense of the state of an event or the condition of something. The statement must be spontaneously made while the person was perceiving the event or condition, or "immediately thereafter." The permissible time lapse between event and statement may range from seconds to minutes, but probably not hours. The subject matter and content of the statement are limited to descriptions or explanations of the event or condition, therefore opinions, inferences, or conclusions about the event or condition are not present sense impressions. An example of present sense impression is of a person saying, "it's cold" or "we're going really fast".
An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event". It is an exception to the hearsay rule. The statement must be spontaneously made by the person while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" the event or condition in question. The statement could be a description or explanation, or an opinion or inference. Examples include: "Look out! We're going to crash!" or "I think he's crazy. He's shooting at us!" The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be a premeditated falsehood. Compared to present sense impression, excited utterance is broader in scope for permitting a longer time lapse between event and statement, and a wider range of content in the statement.
The party admission, in the law of evidence, is a type of statement that appears to be hearsay but is generally exempted (excluded) from the definition of hearsay because it was made by a party to the litigation adverse to the party introducing it into evidence.
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence of the United States, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence contain the rules governing impeachment in US federal courts.
Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.
The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.
In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may in common law nonetheless be admitted as evidence in criminal law trials because it constituted the last words of a dying person. The rationale is that someone who is dying or believes death to be imminent would have less incentive to fabricate testimony, and as such, the hearsay statement carries with it some reliability.
In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest to evidence, argument, or questions that are in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. Objections are often raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony, and may also be raised during depositions and in response to written discovery.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to evidence law in the United States:
Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66, is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1986 which overruled close to two centuries of decisional law in Pennsylvania and established a common law exception to the rule against hearsay.
In United States criminal law, an outcry witness is the person who first hears an allegation of abuse made by a child or another victim of abuse or sexual crime. The witness is legally obligated to report the abuse, and may be called upon during the trial proceedings.
The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution. Generally there are two systems of criminal law to which a person maybe subject; the most frequent is state criminal law, and the other is federal law.
The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.
The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
