MN · rules
Minn. R. Evid. 807
Residual Exception
A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name, address and present whereabouts of the declarant.
History
(Adopted effective September 1, 2006.) Committee Comment - 2006 The new Rule 807 is taken from Fed. R. Evid. 807 and combines Rules 803(24) and 804(b)(5). The rule requires the proponent to disclose, if known, the name, address and present whereabouts of the declarant. In criminal cases, offering hearsay statements against the accused from declarants who do not testify and are not subject to cross-examination, may implicate the constitutional right to confrontation.
Provenance
- Source
- revisor.mn.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
f6d1e1188384506a8e337ffe08b5baf69ebc61a10a700df938527e64876c2869
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.