Are Text Messages Hearsay?

A text message is hearsay only if it is offered to prove that what the message says is true. Many texts are offered for something else, such as showing that a conversation happened, that a party knew something, or what a party said, and many that are offered for their truth fall under an exception, most often the rule for statements by an opposing party.

Whether a text is hearsay and whether it is authentic are two different questions, and a message has to clear both before a court will admit it.

The rule, in the words of the rule

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) defines hearsay as:

"a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."

California Evidence Code § 1200 says the same thing in state court:

"(a) 'Hearsay evidence' is evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.
(b) Except as provided by law, hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
(c) This section shall be known and may be cited as the hearsay rule."

Every state has its own version, and they track this definition closely. The two elements that matter for texts are that the statement was made out of court (a text always is) and that it is being offered for its truth (a text often is not).

When a text message is not hearsay at all

The hearsay rule only bites when the point of the exhibit is that the content is true. A text can be relevant for many other reasons:

• To show the statement was made. In a harassment or threats case, the fact that the defendant sent "I know where you live" is the issue; whether the sender really knew is beside the point.
• To show notice or knowledge. A landlord's text saying "the heater is broken again" proves the landlord knew about the heater, whether or not the heater was broken.
• To show the effect on the recipient. A message that explains why someone acted as they did.
• To show a contract, agreement or demand. Words that have legal effect on their own ("I accept," "you're fired") are verbal acts, not assertions offered for their truth.
• To impeach. A witness's earlier text that contradicts their testimony is offered to show inconsistency.
• Machine-generated data is not a statement. Timestamps, delivery receipts and metadata are produced by a device, not a person. In People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, the California Supreme Court put it this way: "The Evidence Code does not contemplate that a machine can make a statement."

When a text is hearsay but comes in anyway

If a text is offered for its truth, the question becomes whether an exception or exemption applies. For text messages the usual candidates are:

Statements by an opposing party. This is the exception that carries most text-message evidence. In federal court, FRE 801(d)(2) treats a statement as not hearsay when it "is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party's agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy." California's equivalent, Evidence Code § 1220, provides that a statement is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule "when offered against the declarant in an action to which he is a party in either his individual or representative capacity." If your opponent wrote the text, this is usually the answer.

Adoptive admissions. A party who receives an accusation by text and replies in a way that accepts it, or fails to deny it where a denial would be expected, may have adopted the statement (FRE 801(d)(2)(B); Cal. Evid. Code § 1221).

Present sense impressions, excited utterances and then-existing state of mind. Texts sent while an event is happening or immediately after ("he just hit me"), or that describe the sender's current feelings, plans or intent, can fall under FRE 803(1), (2) and (3) and their state analogs.

Business records. FRE 803(6) covers "a record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis" that "was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge," kept "in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business," where "making the record was a regular practice of that activity." Carrier records and some workplace messaging logs can qualify; a personal text thread generally does not.

Prior inconsistent statements of a testifying witness, subject to each jurisdiction's conditions.

Hearsay is not authentication

People often use "hearsay" as a general objection to text messages, but the more common obstacle is authentication: showing that the message was actually sent by the person you say sent it and that the exhibit is complete and unaltered. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) requires "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." California's Evidence Code § 1401 requires authentication "before it may be received in evidence." A text can be non-hearsay and still be excluded for lack of foundation, and a perfectly authentic text can still be inadmissible hearsay.

Courts have excluded messages on both grounds. In Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996 (Pa. Super. 2011), the Superior Court held that text messages found on a phone in the defendant's possession should not have been admitted, because nothing showed she wrote them; the court explained that authentication "requires more than mere confirmation that the number or address belonged to a particular person." In Butler v. State, 459 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015), the court noted that evidence "that merely shows the association of a phone number with a purported sender—alone—might be too tenuous," but found the content and context of the messages supplied the rest.

For the authentication side, see Evidence Code 1401: authenticating text messages in California and the state-by-state overview in Are text messages admissible in court?.

A short checklist before you offer a text

1. What is the message being offered to prove? If it is not the truth of the content, say so; the hearsay rule does not apply.
2. If it is offered for its truth, who wrote it? If the opposing party did, FRE 801(d)(2) or the state equivalent covers it.
3. If a non-party wrote it, which exception fits, and can you lay the foundation for it?
4. Separately, how will you authenticate the message and the copy you are offering?
5. Can you show the exhibit is complete? Cropped or selectively screenshotted threads invite a rule-of-completeness objection (FRE 106) on top of everything else.

Why the company is called Hearsay

Hearsay (usehearsay.com) is an evidence collection and review platform built by No More Screenshots, Inc. Law firms use it to collect text messages, emails, social media, documents and financial records from clients' own devices and accounts, with hash verification and audit logs, so the messages can be authenticated and produced rather than argued about. Hearsay is not affiliated with Hearsay Systems, Hearsay Social or Hearsay Relate, which are client-engagement and compliance products for financial services (now part of Yext).

Frequently asked questions

Are text messages always hearsay?

No. A text is hearsay only when it is offered to prove the truth of what it says. Texts offered to show that a statement was made, that someone had notice, the effect on the recipient, or as a verbal act are not hearsay.

Is a text message from the other party hearsay?

If it is offered against the party who wrote it, it is admissible as an opposing party's statement under FRE 801(d)(2) or, in California, under Evidence Code § 1220, and similar rules in other states.

Are screenshots of text messages hearsay?

The hearsay analysis is the same whether the message is shown as a screenshot, a printout or a forensic export. The format matters for authentication, where a screenshot is easier to attack as incomplete or altered than an extraction with timestamps and hash verification.

Are timestamps and metadata hearsay?

Generally no. Data generated by a device or server is not a statement by a person. The California Supreme Court held in People v. Goldsmith (2014) that machine-generated data is not hearsay under the Evidence Code.

Does authenticating a text solve the hearsay problem?

No. Authentication shows the message is what you claim it is; the hearsay rule asks what you are using it for. Both must be satisfied.

Collect the whole thread, with timestamps and hashes, so the fight is about the rule and not the exhibit. Start a collection with Hearsay or book a demo.

This guide is general information about evidence law, not legal advice. Rules vary by jurisdiction; consult a licensed attorney about your matter.