other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” “Hearsay is not admissible at trial unless it qualifies as an exception to the rule against hearsay.” State v. Zukevich, 84 Hawai'i 203, 205, 932 P.2d 340, 342 (App.1997) (internal citations omitted). “Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule” provided under the HRE. HRE Rule 805 (1993). Although Petitioner and Respondent cite no cases, they are correct as to their position that a text message is hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See State v. Franklin, 280 Kan. 337, 121 P.3d 447, 451-52 (2005) (<HOLDING>). However, Petitioner concedes that the actual
holding that statements offered to establish defendants state of mind in making an employment decision and  not offered for the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay holding that a text message constituted hearsay insofar as it was offered to prove the truth of the statement asserted holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that some of the testimony is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and there fore is not hearsay holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony