Short answer. Yes, through the residual exception in Rule 130, Section 50. A statement not covered by any of the other exceptions can still be admitted if it has equivalent trustworthiness, is offered for a material fact, is more probative than other evidence reasonably available, and the proponent gives the other side advance notice of the intent to use it.
What the law says
A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court determines that
Rule 130, Section 50 — Residual exception. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact
Rule 130, Section 50 — Residual exception. Read the full provision →
A safety valve, not a shortcut around hearsay
Section 50 exists for the statement that genuinely does not fit any of the specific, named hearsay exceptions elsewhere in Rule 130, but that is still reliable enough to deserve consideration. The provision does not relax the trustworthiness demanded of hearsay generally — it requires the statement to carry equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness to the exceptions it stands alongside, which is a real bar, not a formality.
The three things the court must find
Beyond trustworthiness, the rule sets three further conditions the court must determine are satisfied: that the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; that it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and that admitting it serves the general purposes of the rules and the interests of justice. All three, together with trustworthiness, have to be present — this is not a rule a party can invoke simply because their preferred evidence happens to be hearsay.
The notice requirement that protects the other side
The exception is conditioned on fair warning: the party wanting to use the statement must, sufficiently in advance of the hearing (or by the pre-trial stage for the main case), tell the adverse party of the intention to offer it, along with the particulars — including the declarant's name and address. This lets the opposing party investigate the statement and its source before it is sprung on them at trial, rather than confronting it for the first time on the stand.
Why courts still treat it cautiously
Because Section 50 is deliberately open-ended compared to the specific, well-defined exceptions elsewhere in the rule, courts tend to apply it carefully rather than as a routine backdoor into hearsay. A party hoping to rely on it should expect to make an affirmative showing on trustworthiness, materiality, and comparative probative value, not simply argue that no other exception happened to apply to their particular statement.
Related provisions
- Rule 130, Section 50 — Residual exception
- Rule 130, Section 49 — Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding