Which of the following is NOT a way that declarant statements can be admitted?

A declarant's statement is typically considered hearsay if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and does not fall within a recognized exception or exclusion. Thus, if a statement is admitted as hearsay simply because it supports the case, it does not align with the principles of admissibility under the hearsay rule. Hearsay statements must be weighed carefully, and simply being supportive of one party's position does not justify their admission under the hearsay rules.

Statements may be admitted as non-hearsay when they fall under special categories, like prior inconsistent statements or admissions by a party opponent. These exceptions recognize that certain statements, while technically hearsay, may offer unique reliability because of their context or content.

Additionally, reliable hearsay may be admitted when it aligns with an established exception to the hearsay rule, recognizing that not all hearsay is equally problematic. Similarly, a statement may not even qualify as hearsay if it lacks a key element—specifically, if the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, thus allowing it to be admitted without running afoul of hearsay restrictions.