Subsection(a) is in accord with Rule 62(1), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971).
Subsection(b) is in accord with Rule 62(2), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). The hearsayrule is not applicable in declarations of devices and machines, e.g., radar.The definition of "hearsay" in subdivision (c) is substantially thesame as Rule 63, Utah Rules of Evidence (1971).
Subdivision(d)(1) is similar to Rule 63(1), Utah Rules of Evidence (1971). It deviatesfrom the federal rule in that it allows use of prior statements as substantiveevidence if (1) inconsistent or (2) the witness has forgotten, and does notrequire the prior statement to have been given under oath or subject toperjury. The former Utah rules admitted such statements as an exception to thehearsay rule. See California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970), with respect toconfrontation problems under the Sixth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution. Subdivision (d)(1) is as originally promulgated by the UnitedStates Supreme Court with the addition of the language "or the witnessdenies having made the statement or has forgotten" and is in keeping withthe prior Utah rule and the actual effect on most juries.
Subdivision(d)(1)(B) is in substance the same as Rule 63(1), Utah Rules of Evidence(1971). The Utah court has been liberal in its interpretation of the applicablerule in this general area. State v. Sibert, 6 Utah 2d198, 310 P.2d 388 (1957).
Subdivision(d)(1)(C) comports with prior Utah case law. State v. Owens, 15 Utah 2d 123,388 P.2d 797 (1964); State v. Vasquez, 22 Utah 2d 277, 451 P.2d 786 (1969).
The substanceof subdivision (d)(2)(A) was contained in Rules 63(6) and (7), Utah Rules ofEvidence (1971), as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Similarprovisions to subdivisions (d)(2)(B) and (C) were contained in Rule 63(8), UtahRules of Evidence (1971), as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Rule 63(9),Utah Rules of Evidence (1971), was of similar substance and scope tosubdivision (d)(2)(D), except that Rule 63(9) required that the
Statements bya coconspirator of a party made during the course and in furtherance of theconspiracy, admissible as non-hearsay under subdivision (d)(2)(E), havetraditionally been admitted as exceptions to the hearsay rule. State v. Erwin,101 Utah 365, 120 P.2d 285 (1941). Rule 63(9)(b), Utah Rules of Evidence(1971), was broader than this rule in that it provided for the admission ofstatements made while the party and declarant wereparticipating in a plan to commit a crime or a civil wrong if the statement wasrelevant to the plan or its subject matter and made while the plan was inexistence and before its complete execution or other termination.