In hearsay, an out-of-court statement is NOT offered for its truth when it is offered to show the declarant's capacity to observe, recall, or relate information?

• A. Capacity
• B. Effect on hearer
• C. Legally operative effect
• D. Verbal act

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is recognizing a nonhearsay use of an out-of-court statement: it’s admitted not to prove the truth of what was said, but to show something about the declarant’s ability at the time. When the purpose is to demonstrate the declarant’s capacity to observe, recall, or relate information, the statement is not being offered for its truth. It’s about credibility and cognitive ability—whether the declarant could have perceived or remembered the events in question—rather than whether the content of the statement actually happened as claimed.

That’s why capacity is the best answer. It captures the idea that the evidence is aimed at showing the declarant’s mental ability to observe or relate information, not at proving that the asserted facts are true.

The other ideas describe different nonhearsay uses, but they don’t fit this specific purpose as directly. An effect on the hearer is about the impact on someone who hears the statement, which is a separate nonhearsay reason. Legally operative effects involve statements that create or extinguish rights or have a legal consequence on their own. A verbal act covers words with inherent legal significance. Here, the focus is on the declarant’s capacity to observe, recall, or relate information, so capacity is the most precise fit.