California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Norton v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 217 (Cal. App. 1994):
The admissibility of evidence often turns on the purpose for which it is offered. A well known example is the distinction between evidence of an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated and an out-of-court statement offered to prove some other fact. The former statement is inadmissible unless it comes within an exception to the hearsay rule; the latter statement is admissible unless barred by some other rule of evidence. Similarly, in cases where the collateral source rule bars evidence of insurance benefits for the purpose of mitigating damages it does not necessarily bar introduction of such evidence for some other purpose. (Hrnjak v. Graymar, Inc. (1971) 4 Cal.3d 725, 733, 94 Cal.Rptr. 623, 484 P.2d 599.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.