Court Opinion

ID: 9647078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:22:44.295343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:45.260409
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I join in the majority’s opinion. However, I write separately because of the majority’s characterization of certain testimony complained of by Appellant as being an exception to the hearsay rule. This testimony was incorrectly characterized as an exception to the hearsay rule. This testimony was not hearsay.
Witness Charlena Hudgins testified that the victim told her that Appellant had torn up the house and that the victim left *441the house as a result. The majority correctly states that “[t]he victim’s out-of-court statement about [Appellant]’s violence was thus not admitted for the truth of the statement but because of its effect on the witness.... ” Op. at 422. The majority goes on to state that “[a]s the out-of-court statement was not admitted for its truth, it was admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay.” Id. (citation omitted). Where an out-of-court statement is not admitted to prove the truth of what was said, the hearsay rule does not apply to that statement. Commonwealth v. Fultz, 478 Pa. 207, 212-13, 386 A.2d 513, 515 (1978) (citing Commonwealth v. Wright, 455 Pa. 480, 485, 317 A.2d 271, 273 (1974)); see also 6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1766 (Chadbourn rev.1976). As Ms. Hudgins’ testimony regarding the victim’s out-of-court statement that he left his home because of Appellant’s behavior was not offered for its truth but for the effect it had on Ms. Hudgins, it is not an exception to the hearsay rule; rather, it is not hearsay.