Anne's statement that she overheard a student state a bomb was planted and would go off soon is most likely admissible either as an excited utterance (res gestae) or an admission against interest, each of which is an exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the statement is most likely admissible under any circumstances as it does not truly constitute hearsay. The hearsay rule only applies if the statement made is introduced to prove its truth. Here, the statement was offered as evidence not to prove that a bomb was in fact planted, but merely that the person made the statement. In this instance, it does not constitute hearsay. Additionally, since the defendant is the person charged with making the statement and is present, he/she has the opportunity to refute the statement; therefore hearsay would not apply once again.

Anne's previous statement to Police may be used to impeach her testimony; but it does not make it inadmissible. Jacob's statement is admissible, as Anne is present to deny or refute it. His comments about Anne's expression again might be used to impeach her testimony.