What might constitute a valid reason for admitting hearsay?

A valid reason for admitting hearsay in legal proceedings is when it meets established exceptions, such as excited utterances. Excited utterances are statements made during a time of excitement or stress, where the declarant is unlikely to fabricate or misrepresent information due to the spontaneity of the situation. Courts recognize that under such circumstances, the reliability of the statement is heightened, making it an exception to the hearsay rule.

This understanding is rooted in the principle that certain types of hearsay can possess inherent reliability, which justifies their admission as evidence even in the absence of direct testimony from the declarant. The law aims to balance the need for relevance and reliability in evidence, which is why exceptions are carefully defined in legal contexts.

In contrast, the other options do not represent valid reasons for admitting hearsay. Simply being told by the accused does not automatically make a statement admissible, as hearsay rules still apply. While circumstantial evidence can support a case, it does not provide a basis for hearsay admission on its own. Additionally, testimony from multiple witnesses does not inherently validate hearsay; rather, each statement must independently comply with the rules of evidence to be admissible.