Short answer. Generally no. Hearsay — an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts — is inadmissible except under specific exceptions the rules recognize, so a witness usually cannot simply repeat what someone else told them to prove that the thing said was actually true.
What the law says
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is an oral or written assertion or a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
Rule 130, Section 36 — Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge: hearsay excluded. (Transposed to Sec. 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. )] 5. Hearsay Section 37. Hearsay. Read the full provision →
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth
The rule defines hearsay as a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. The key is not simply that someone else said it — it is that the statement is being offered to prove the very thing it asserts actually happened.
A statement can be an oral or written assertion, or even non-verbal conduct, so long as the person intended it as an assertion of something.
Why the rule excludes this kind of secondhand testimony
The rule flatly states that hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these Rules. The underlying concern is that the original speaker was never placed under oath and was never cross-examined about what they supposedly said, so the court has no reliable way to test whether the out-of-court statement was actually accurate or truthful in the first place.
Exceptions exist, but they are not automatic
The rule itself acknowledges exceptions — statements admitted as otherwise provided in these Rules — for specific categories the rules recognize as reliable enough despite the general exclusion. A witness or lawyer cannot simply assume secondhand testimony qualifies for one of these; each recognized exception has its own separate requirements that must actually be satisfied before that particular statement can come in.
Why this distinction matters in building a case
Anyone planning to rely on what someone else said outside of court should think carefully about whether that testimony is truly hearsay, or whether it falls within one of the recognized exceptions instead. Testimony offered for some purpose other than proving the truth of what was said — for example, simply showing that the statement was made at all — is not barred by this rule the same way, so the specific purpose of the testimony matters as much as its content.