purpose of the video recording is to prove the truth of the statement asserted therein. That is, the recording is offered as evidence in order to establish that the Defendant did in fact commit the acts of sexual contact. Because the recording qualifies as hearsay evidence, as the trial court determined, it “is not admissible except as provided by [the Tennessee Rules of Evidence] or otherwise by law.” Tenn. R. Evid. 802. The trial court ruled that the video recording did not fit within any exception to the general rule of excluding hearsay evidence. We disagree. Although the video recording does not qualify as one of the specifically recognized hearsay exceptions, Tennessee Rule of Evidence 802 provides for admission if allowed “otherwise by law.” See also Mallard, 40 S.W.3d at 480 (<HOLDING>). We have determined that the legislature acted
holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute holding to read words and concepts into our statutes that the general assembly did not write shows disrespect both for the general assembly and the common law which the legislature has the power expressly to displace recognizing general rule holding that the existing exceptions to rule 404bs general bar against the admission of propensity evidence allow for the introduction of both prior and subsequent bad acts evidence recognizing the power of the general assembly to enact statutes bearing on the introduction of evidence