Colo. R. Evid. 802
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by the civil and criminal procedural rules applicable to the courts of Colorado or by any statutes of the State of Colorado.
CRE 802
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Hearsay in Criminal Cases Under the Colorado Rules of Evidence: An Overview", see 50 U. Colo. L. Rev. 277 (1979). Rationale behind rule. Hearsay rule generally forbids evidence of out-of-court utterances to prove facts asserted in them because of the lack of opportunity to test, by cross-examination, the accuracy and truth of the statements offered. Fernandez v. People, 176 Colo. 346, 490 P.2d 690 (1971). No case law or common law exceptions. The language of this rule does not permit any exception based upon "case law" or "common law" decisions to its prohibition against the admission of hearsay evidence. People v. Rosenthal, 670 P.2d 1254 (Colo. App. 1983). Inadmissible hearsay evidence not transformed into competent evidence by testimony of observations. Inadmissible hearsay evidence is not transformed into competent evidence by permitting a witness to testify as to his own observations when the effect is the same as admitting inadmissible hearsay on statements or conduct which are not in evidence. People v. Botham, 629 P.2d 589 (Colo. 1981). Burden of proof that statement falls within hearsay exception. The prosecution has the burden of showing that a statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule. People in Interest of R.L., 660 P.2d 26 (Colo. App. 1983). Even if it is established that defendant has forfeited his or her right to confront a witness, the reliability of the evidence must still be ensured according to the standards of the rules of evidence. Vasquez v. People, 173 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2007). Where defendant's counsel made a deliberate, tactical choice to introduce bystander's hearsay statement into case, defendant invited any error that may have resulted from its introduction. Therefore, hearsay admission did not violate defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him. People v. Gibson, 203 P.3d 571 (Colo. App. 2008). Erroneous admission of hearsay evidence, without a showing by prosecution that evidence was admissible under exception to hearsay rule or that declarant was unavailable, was harmless error where there was abundant evidence upon which jury could find the defendant guilty without the hearsay testimony. Erroneous admission of hearsay evidence does not violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him where the utility of confrontation was extremely remote. People v. Shipman, 747 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1987). Any error in admitting letters that contained inadmissable hearsay was harmless. Without examining the contents of the letters, the court presumed the jury followed the trial court's instruction not to consider the letters for the truth of their contents. When considered in light of the substantial other evidence, any error in admitting the content of the letters was harmless. People v. Manier, 197 P.3d 254 (Colo. App. 2008). Section 13-25-129 permits hearsay testimony related to acts of mental and emotional abuse in a child abuse case. The term "health" in § 18-6-401(1) includes both physical and mental well-being. People v. Sherrod, 204 P.3d 472 (Colo. App. 2007), rev'd on other grounds, 204 P.3d 466 (Colo. 2009). Officer's testimony regarding informant was not hearsay. Informant's statements regarding drug deal's arrangements, the suppliers and their street names, and identifying them when they arrived at the scene were introduced to show why the officers went to that particular location to arrest defendant, not for the truthfulness of those statements. People v. Robinson, 226 P.3d 1145 (Colo. App. 2009). Defendant may not rely upon an affidavit at a suppression hearing without attempting to call the affiant. The affidavit is hearsay evidence and thus may not properly be admitted at a suppression hearing. The affidavit is sufficient to determine whether a hearing is necessary, but not to actually determine the matter itself. People v. Warner, 251 P.3d 567 (Colo. App. 2010). Applied in Lancaster v. People, 200 Colo. 448, 615 P.2d 720 (1980); People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1982); Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Citizens State Bank, 651 P.2d 460 (Colo. App. 1982); People in Interest of O.E.P., 654 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1982); Goodboe v. Gabriella, 663 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App. 1983).