Conn. R. Evid. 8-7
Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception.
Conn. Code. Evid. 8-7
COMMENTARY
Section 8-7 applies to situations in which a hearsay statement contains within it another level of hearsay, forming what is frequently referred to as "[h]earsay within hearsay . . . .'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dinan v. Marchand, 279 Conn. 558, 571, 903 A.2d 201 (2006). The rule finds support in the case law. See State v. Williams, 231 Conn. 235, 249, 645 A.2d 999 (1994); State v. Buster, 224 Conn. 546, 560 n.8, 620 A.2d 110 (1993).
Section 8-7 in no way abrogates the court's discretion to exclude hearsay within hearsay otherwise admissible when its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect arising from the unreliability sometimes found in multiple levels of hearsay. See Section 4-3; cf. State v. Green, 16 Conn. App. 390, 399-400, 547 A.2d 916, cert. denied, 210 Conn. 802, 553 A.2d 616 (1988). As the levels of hearsay increase, so should the potential for exclusion under Section 4-3.
A familiar example of hearsay within hearsay is the writing, which qualifies under the business records exception; see Section 8-4; and which contains information derived from individuals under no business duty to provide information. See, e.g., O'Shea v. Mignone, 35 Conn. App. 828, 831-32, 647 A.2d 37 (1994) (police officer's report containing hearsay statement of bystander). The informant's statements independently must fall within another hearsay exception for the writing to be admissible. See State v. Sharpe, 195 Conn. 651, 663-64, 491 A.2d 345 (1985); State v. Palozie, 165 Conn. 288, 294-95, 334 A.2d 468 (1973); see also State v. Torelli, 103 Conn. App. 646, 659-62, 931 A.2d 337 (2007) (statement to 911 operator by motorist observing defendant admissible as spontaneous utterance contained in business record).