New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

Can a police officer testify about a victim pointing towards the defendant’s travel direction?

1. Yes, because the victim's response was non-verbal and thus not hearsay.

2. Yes, because it falls under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule.

3. No, if offered to prove in what direction the defendant fled.

4. No, regardless of the purpose for which it is offered.

The correct answer is: No, if offered to prove in what direction the defendant fled.

The scenario revolves around the admissibility of a witness's testimony regarding a victim's non-verbal communication, specifically pointing towards the direction a defendant fled. To clarify why the assertion that this testimony cannot be used to prove the direction the defendant fled is correct, we delve into the hearsay rule and its exceptions. The hearsay rule bars the admission of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception applies. In this case, the victim's non-verbal act of pointing, while potentially relevant, is often viewed with caution because it is used to establish the direction of the defendant's flight, which implies a conclusion about the defendant's actions and state of mind rather than simply relaying direct observations. When such testimony is presented to establish facts about the defendant's actions (i.e., where he fled), it crosses the line from direct observation to inferences based on the pointing gesture. This type of inference is often subject to challenges regarding its reliability, as it does not necessarily convey the victim's direct knowledge of the event itself but instead involves interpretation. Conversely, while the victim's pointing is indeed a non-verbal response and not classic hearsay, its purpose in this context specifically tracks towards the implications of that