Which of the following is not a category of non-hearsay?

The identification of prior verbal agreements as a category that does not qualify as non-hearsay is rooted in the distinction between statements of fact and statements offered for their truth. Non-hearsay classifications involve statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but serve other legal purposes in court.

Prior inconsistent statements are considered non-hearsay when used to impeach the credibility of a witness, showing that they previously made a statement that contradicts their current testimony. Similarly, prior consistent statements can be introduced to bolster a witness's credibility when they face accusations of fabrication or bias. Opposing party statements admit statements made by the party against whom the evidence is offered, acknowledging that such statements can have various legal implications that do not rely on their truth for impact.

In contrast, prior verbal agreements do not neatly fit into the non-hearsay category because they often serve to establish the terms of an agreement itself, which requires consideration of the truth of the assertions made within those agreements. Thus, they are treated more like hearsay unless an exception applies, making them a distinct category that is not recognized as non-hearsay.