Dying Declarations and Hearsay under Evidence Law
Dying Declarations and Hearsay under Evidence Law
1. Overview of Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible in court because the declarant is not available for cross-examination, raising concerns about reliability and fairness.
2. Definition of Dying Declaration
A dying declaration is a specific exception to the hearsay rule. It is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their impending death. Because of the belief that the declarant will not survive, the law gives special reliability to such statements, allowing them to be admitted in evidence even though they are hearsay.
3. Requirements for Dying Declarations
To be admissible as a dying declaration, the following conditions must typically be met:
The declarant must be unavailable: Usually because they have died or are otherwise unable to testify.
The statement relates to the cause or circumstances of death: It must be about what caused their death or the events leading to it.
The declarant must have a settled, hopeless expectation of impending death: The declarant believes death is imminent and imminent at the time of making the statement.
Usually restricted to homicide or civil cases: Most jurisdictions allow dying declarations only in homicide cases (criminal) or civil cases where the declarant is a party.
4. Legal Rationale for the Exception
The rationale behind admitting dying declarations is based on the belief that a person who is about to die is unlikely to lie, motivated by a sense of solemnity and finality.
5. Key Case Law Examples
Case 1: R v. Woodcock (1834)
Facts: The accused was charged with murder. The victim made a statement identifying the attacker while believing death was imminent.
Holding: The court admitted the statement as a dying declaration.
Legal principle: Established that a statement made by a declarant under the expectation of impending death is admissible even though it is hearsay.
Case 2: R v. Powell (1888)
Facts: The victim made a statement about who attacked him, but later recovered.
Holding: The court ruled that since the declarant did not die, the statement was not a dying declaration and thus inadmissible hearsay.
Principle: The declarant must genuinely believe death is imminent, and the statement is typically admissible only if the declarant dies.
Case 3: State v. Lang (1940)
Facts: The declarant made a statement identifying the perpetrator of an assault while in critical condition.
Holding: The statement was admitted as a dying declaration despite the declarant’s death occurring some time after the statement.
Legal principle: The key factor is the declarant’s belief at the time of making the statement, not the time elapsed until death.
6. Distinction Between Hearsay and Dying Declaration
Hearsay Rule: Generally excludes out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted because of reliability concerns.
Dying Declaration Exception: Allows hearsay when the statement is made under the solemn circumstances of imminent death, enhancing its reliability.
7. Limitations and Criticisms
Some jurisdictions limit dying declarations to homicide cases or civil cases involving death.
Others require corroborating evidence due to concerns about reliability.
Critics argue that the declarant’s belief may not always be genuine, and statements may still be false.
8. Summary
Dying declarations are a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule in evidence law, allowing statements made by a person under the belief that death is imminent to be admitted in court. The rationale is based on the presumption that such statements are truthful due to the declarant’s impending death. Case law like R v. Woodcock and R v. Powell illustrate the principles governing the admissibility of dying declarations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments