There is no rule better known than that hearsay evidence is generally not admissible. It is equally true, though not so widely known, that there are a large number of specific exceptions to this general rule of exclusion. Hearsay, has been so long under the ban that the profession not uncommonly thinks of it as not being evidence at all, rather than as a kind of evidence generally excluded for reasons of policy connected with the jury trial. This notion is responsible for a good deal of confusion in dealing with the exceptions under which hearsay is received. Instead of frankly dealing with the problem on the basis of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, there is a constant tendency to conclude that because certain evidence having all the earmarks of hearsay is actually received, it can not be hearsay, and to distinguish it from hearsay by such phrases as "verbal acts" and "res gestae."
E. W. Hinton,
Some Problems in Hearsay and Relevancy in Missouri,
15 Bulletin Law Series.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/ls/vol15/iss1/3