City of Webster Groves v. Quick 323 S.W.2d 386 (1959)
Quick was caught speeding.
At trial, the policeman testified that he used a radar gun
to clock Quick's speed.
Quick objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was
Basically, Quick argued that there was no actual
evidence that he was driving 40 mph, there was only the policeman's
claim as to what he saw on the radar gun.
The Trial Court found Quick guilty of speeding. Quick
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Appellate Court found the evidence to not be hearsay.
The policeman himself testified to what he saw,
not to what someone else had told him they saw.
The policeman testified under oath and was
cross-examined, thereby satisfying the rules for the admissibility of his
Evidence is only hearsay when its probative force
depends, in whole or in part, on the competency and credibility of some person
other than the witness by whom it is sought to be produced.
If the policeman had testified that someone told him that
they saw Quick speeding, that would be hearsay, because the Court
would have no way to gauge the credibility of that person. In this case,
the policeman's credibility could be gauged because he testified under
oath at trial and was cross-examined by the other side.
In order to be hearsay, it has to be a statement
made by another person, 'statements' made by a machine like a radar gun
are not considered to be hearsay.
Btw, even though the machine reading isn't hearsay,
it still must be authenticated to ensure that it is reporting