Question

When someone argues a statement is not hearsay because they are offering it for the subsequent action of a witness, this argument is:

a. Valid on its face.
b. Is actually arguing an exception to hearsay.
c. Has a necessary, unstated premise that the statement is not for the truth of the matter asserted, but instead is...
d. Invalid based on hearsay rules.

Answer 1

The argument is actually arguing an exception to hearsay based on the necessary, unstated premise that the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but instead is being offered to demonstrate a subsequent action.

Step-by-step explanation:

The argument that someone is offering a statement for the subsequent action of a witness is actually arguing an exception to hearsay. This exception is based on the necessary, unstated premise that the statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but instead is being offered to demonstrate a subsequent action.