Rule 804. ?Exceptions to the Rule
(a)(1) is exempted fromtestifying about the subject matter of the declarant?s statementbecause the court rules that a privilege applies;
(a)(2) refuses to testifyabout the subject matter despite a court order to do so;
(a)(3) testifies to notremembering the subject matter;
(a)(4) cannot be present ortestify at the trial or hearing because of death or a then-existing infirmity,physical illness, or mental illness; or
(a)(5) is absent from thetrial or hearing and the statement?s proponent has not been able, by process orother reasonable means, to procure the declarant?s attendance.
But this subdivision (a) does not apply if the statement?sproponent procured or wrongfully caused the declarant?s unavailabilityas a witness in order to prevent the declarant fromattending or testifying.
(b)(1) Former Testimony. Testimony that:
(b)(1) (B) is now offered against a party who had ? or, in a civil case,whose predecessor in interest had ? an opportunity and similar motive todevelop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
(b)(2) Statement Underthe Belief of Imminent Death. In a civil or criminal case, a statement made by the
(b)(3) Statement AgainstInterest. Astatement that:
(b)(3)(A) a reasonable person in the declarant?s positionwould have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made,it was so contrary to the declarant?s proprietaryor pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the
(b)(4) Statement of Personal or FamilyHistory. Astatement about:
(b)(4)(A) the declarant?s own birth,adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, relationship by blood ormarriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, even though the
EffectiveNovember 1, 2004
2011 Advisory Committee Note.
Original Advisory Committee Note.
Subdivision(b)(1) is comparable to Rule 63(3), Utah Rules ofEvidence (1971), but the former rule is broader to the extent that it did notlimit the admission of the testimony to a situation where the party to theaction had the interest and opportunity to develop the testimony.
Subdivision(b)(2) is comparable to Rule 63(5), Utah Rules ofEvidence (1971), but the former rule was not limited to declarations concerningthe cause or circumstances of the impending death nor did it limit dyingdeclarations in criminal prosecutions to homicide cases. The rule has beenmodified by making it applicable to any civil or criminal proceeding, subjectto the qualification that the judge finds the statement to have been made in goodfaith.
Subdivision(b)(3) is comparable to Rule 63(10), Utah Rules ofEvidence (1971), though it does not extend merely to social interests.
Subdivision(b)(4) is similar to Rule 63(24), Utah Rules ofEvidence (1971).
Subdivision(b)(5) had no counterpart in Utah Rules of Evidence(1971).