Mass. R. Evid. 805
Hearsay within hearsay is not excluded by the rule against hearsay if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule in accordance with the common law, a statute, or a rule of court.
Mass. Guid. Evid. 805
This section is derived from Commonwealth v. Gil, 393 Mass. 204, 218 (1984), and Bouchie v. Murray, 376 Mass. 524, 528-530 (1978). See Commonwealth v. McDonough, 400 Mass. 639, 643 n.8 (1987). This type of layered hearsay is commonly referred to as "multiple hearsay," see Gil, 393 Mass. at 218; "totem pole hearsay," see Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. 620, 627 n.4 (2002); or "hearsay within hearsay," see Fed. R. Evid. 805. The decisions in Bouchie, 376 Mass. at 528-530, and Custody of Tracy, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 481, 484-486 (1991), illustrate the principle that under the terms of certain exceptions to the hearsay rule, the statements of multiple out-of-court declarants appearing in a single report or writing may be admissible, provided that each such statement falls within the applicable hearsay exception. See also Commonwealth v. Rivera, 482 Mass. 259, 268-269 (2019); Commonwealth v. DePina, 476 Mass. 614, 623 (2017).
Use of "totem pole hearsay" or "multiple hearsay" must conform to the principles of due process. The party against whom such evidence is to be used must have a meaningful opportunity to rebut the adverse evidence. Brantley v. Hampden Div. of the Probate & Family Ct. Dep't, 457 Mass. 172, 185-186 (2010) (documents "comprised of abbreviated oral summaries of voluminous records made by persons who may have no firsthand experience with the case" were unreliable and judge's consideration of such documents could run afoul of litigants' due process rights).