either the party’s individual or representative capacity....” HRE Rule 803(a)(1). The text messages qualify as statements offered by Respondent against Petitioner to show Petitioner’s history of threats against the Complainant and, hence, were admissions by a party-opponent under HRE Rule 803(a)(1). Petitioner and Respondent thus also appear correct that the actual text messages would be admissible as an exception to hearsay under HRE Rule 803(a)(1). 2. Next, inquiry must be made as to whether testimony about the text messages constitutes hearsay and whether such testimony is admissible under an exception to the rule again ble under an exception to the rule against hearsay,- then testimony about such evidénee is admissible. See People v. Taylor 117 A.D.2d 829, 499 N.Y.S.2d 151 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the Complainant’s testimony about the
holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements holding that victims writing in his own blood of attackers name was hearsay admissible under the exceptions for dying declarations and excited utterances and therefore testimony from witnesses regarding the writing was admissible holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances holding that statements made while the declarant was in pain crying bleeding and having trouble breathing were properly admissible as excited utterances