During execution of a search warrant at Swain's home, a police officer stationed at the front door witnessed Swain arrive by car. Swain contends the Commonwealth offered Watson's statement for its implied assertion that Swain was a drug dealer. The trial court denied the motion to suppress Watson's statement. At the sentencing hearing, counsel for Swain asked the trial court to suspend part of the jury's recommended sentence. In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.
Hearsay evidence is testimony in court .
Determining whether a statement is offered to prove the truth or falsity of the matter asserted requires an analysis of the purpose for which the statement is offered into evidence. We determine, therefore, the purpose for which the Commonwealth offered the statement. Additionally, Watson's belief that Swain was a drug dealer was not the reason the Commonwealth offered her statement into evidence. We have recognized that words offered solely to give context to party admissions are not hearsay and are admissible. Words which constitute a question or accusation that result in a party admission are not barred by the hearsay evidence rule.