Which of the following is a hearsay exception mentioned as commonly used in criminal cases?

• A. Hearsay within hearsay.
• B. Public statements by government officials.
• C. Business records.
• D. Opinion testimony of lay witnesses.

Answer: (C)

Hearsay is information offered for its truth that isn’t from the witness’s own perception. One of the most common ways to get around hearsay in criminal cases is the business records exception. This exception allows a writing or record of acts, events, conditions, thoughts, or diagnoses to be admitted if it was created in the regular course of business, made at or near the time of the event, by someone with knowledge or from information transmitted by someone with knowledge, and kept in the ordinary course of business. If the foundation is satisfied—often with a custodian of records testifying or a formal certification—the record can be admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.

Think of a bank statement, payroll record, or shipment log. Each is produced as part of daily business operations, entries are made close to when the events occurred, and the organization maintains the record in the regular course of business. When properly authenticated, these records can be admitted despite being hearsay.

Why the others aren’t the right fit on their own: a hearsay within hearsay is not an independent exception; it becomes admissible only if each layer falls under a valid exception. Statements by public officials aren’t themselves a standalone hearsay exception, though some public records can fall under the official/public records categories. And lay witness opinions aren’t hearsay exceptions at all—lay opinions are allowed if based on the witness’s perception, but this isn’t about admitting hearsay. The business records exception is the standard, widely used avenue in criminal proceedings.