關於傳聞同意，我國立法與實務自制訂傳聞法則以來均視其為傳聞例外，因此產生許多有待澄清之爭議。本文自美國法制之觀點出發，除介紹傳聞法則中之補遺例外與證據異議制度之發展外，並就我國實務針對傳聞同意所做之判決予以檢討。鑒於傳聞同意本身並未為（美國）傳聞例外之內涵所涵蓋，因此得以取代對質詰問權之真實性擔保與必要性要件，並非傳聞同意所應探討的課題。基於傳聞例外並不屬於傳聞法則之主張，分別針對傳聞同意適用之方式、範圍、要件、撤回、效力、告知義務、異議等議題，指出我國司法實務之諸多盲點。

Since 2003 the legislative and the judicial identify hearsay admission as a hearsay exception, many problems need to be clarified. After introducing development of the residual hearsay exception as well as evidential objection, this study explores the rationales behind the ROC Supreme Court cases from the American legal perspectives, and points out myths of the judicial practices in areas of how to admit or withdraw hearsay evidence, the scope, element, effect of admission, the notice and objection rules, based upon the premise that hearsay admission not be a hearsay exception. While recognizing hearsay admission does not belong to the concept of hearsay exception, the underlying theory of the right to confront does not apply to hearsay admission.