Rule 803.1. Hearsay Exceptions; Testimony of Declarant Necessary.

 The following statements, as hereinafter defined, are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement:

   (1)  Inconsistent Statement of Witness. A statement by declarant that is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony, and (a) was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (b) is a writing signed and adopted by the declarant, or (c) is a verbatim contemporaneous recording of an oral statement.

   (2)  Statement of Identification.

   (3)  Recorded Recollection.

   Subsection (a) is similar to F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(A), except that the Pennsylvania rule classifies those kinds of inconsistent statements that are described therein as exceptions to the hearsay rule, not exceptions to the definition of hearsay. Subsections (b) and (c) are an expansion of the exception that is described in the federal rule.

   Pa.R.E. 803.1(1) is consistent with prior Pennsylvania case law. See Commonwealth v. Brady, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986) (seminal case that overruled close to two centuries of decisional law in Pennsylvania and held that the recorded statement of a witness to a murder, inconsistent with her testimony at trial, was properly admitted as substantive evidence, excepted to the hearsay rule); Commonwealth v. Lively, 610 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1992). To qualify as a ‘‘verbatim contemporaneous recording of an oral statement,’’ the ‘‘recording’’ must be an electronic, audiotaped, or videotaped recording. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 707 A.2d 1114 (Pa. 1998). Inconsistent statements of a witness that do not qualify as exceptions to the hearsay rule may still be introduced to impeach the credibility of the witness. See Pa.R.E. 613.

   (2)  Statement of Identification. A statement by a witness of identification of a person or thing, made after perceiving the person or thing, provided that the witness testifies to the making of the prior identification.

   Pa.R.E. 803.1(2) differs from F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C) in several respects:

   1. Pa.R.E. 803.1(2) classifies a statement of identification as an exception to the hearsay rule, not an exception to the definition of hearsay.

   2. Pa.R.E. 803.1(2) is broader than its federal counterpart in that it includes identification of a thing, in addition to a person.

   3. Pa.R.E. 803.1(2) is more restrictive than its federal counterpart in that it requires the witness to testify to making the identification.

   Pa.R.E. 803.1(2) is consistent with Pennsylvania law, although we have found no reported cases dealing with prior identification of a thing, as distinguished from a person. See Commonwealth v. Ly, 599 A.2d 613 (Pa. 1991); Commonwealth v. Saunders, 125 A.2d 442 (Pa. 1956).

   (3)  Recorded Recollection. A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’ memory, providing that the witness testifies that the record correctly reflects that knowledge. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence and received as an exhibit, but may be shown to the jury only in exceptional circumstances or when offered by an adverse party.

   Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) is similar to F.R.E. 803(5), but differs in the following ways:

   1. Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) classifies recorded recollection as an exception to the hearsay rule in which the testimony of the declarant is necessary, not as an exception in which the availability of the declarant is immaterial.

   2. Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) makes clear that, to qualify recorded recollection as an exception to the hearsay rule, the witness must testify that the record correctly reflects the knowledge that the witness once had. In other words, the witness must vouch for the reliability of the record. The federal rule is ambiguous on this point and the applicable federal cases are conflicting.

   3. Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) allows the record to be received as an exhibit, and grants the trial judge discretion to show it to the jury in exceptional circumstances, even when not offered by an adverse party.

   Pa.R.E. 803.1(3) is consistent with Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Cargo, 444 A.2d 639 (Pa. 1982); Commonwealth v. Cooley, 398 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1979).

   Official Note

   Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; amended March 10, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the amendment to subsection (1) and the updates to the Comment to subsection (1) published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1646 (March 25, 2000).

   The provisions of this Rule 803 amended March 10, 2000, effective immediately, 30 Pa.B. 1639. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (254226) and (245795).