Incorrect. While the objection should be overruled, the reason is not the one stated. An officer does not have unbridled freedom to testify about an investigation; instead, the officer’s testimony is subject to the normal hearsay rules. But in this example the officer’s statement is not hearsay. Since Bob is a party, out-of-court statements by Bob that are relevant are not hearsay and are admissible as admissions by an opposing party under Rule 11-801(D)(2)(a) NMRA 1999. In this version, the officer is testifying about an out-of-court statement made directly to him by Bob, a party, so the evidence is not hearsay. In Question 2, the statement was not admissible because Allen was attempting to testify as to what Officer Ketchum said, not as to what Bob said.

Get more information on Statements by Opposing Parties
Continue to next question