Also known as: statement of memory or belief · statements of memory · statements of belief · hearsay exception memory belief · FRE 803(3)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A limitation on the hearsay exception for a declarant's then-existing state of mind that bars admission of an out-of-court statement of memory or belief when offered to prove the fact remembered or believed. The exclusion prevents parties from using a present mental-state assertion as a vehicle to introduce a factual recollection that would otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay. The limitation does not apply when the statement relates to the validity or terms of the declarant's will.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Steven Silva told his colleague the day before closing that he recalled signing the purchase agreement the previous week and planned to appear at the title company. When the deal fell through, the seller offered the colleague's testimony to prove that Steven had in fact signed the agreement. The court excluded the portion recounting Steven's recollection of signing because it was a statement of memory offered to prove the fact remembered.
Sophia Singh told her assistant on the morning of the stock sale that she was terrified the company's numbers were about to collapse and therefore planned to cash out her shares that afternoon. The defendant offered the assistant's testimony to prove both Sophia's fear and her belief that the financials were false. The court admitted the portions expressing contemporaneous fear and intent to sell but excluded the embedded assertion about the company's numbers because it was a statement of belief offered to prove the fact believed.
A statement becomes inadmissible to the extent it is offered to prove the truth of a remembered or believed fact rather than the declarant's contemporaneous mental condition. Courts examine the proponent's stated purpose and whether the factual assertion is so intertwined with the mental-state language that the jury cannot separate the two without using the belief for its truth. When the dominant purpose is to establish the fact remembered or believed, exclusion or redaction is required.
Supporting sources
The limitation turns on the purpose for which the statement is offered. Even if the proponent disclaims reliance on the belief component, the statement is inadmissible if the only logical use of the memory or belief portion is to prove the fact asserted. Courts may admit the admissible mental-state portions while excluding or limiting the prohibited factual assertion.
Supporting sources
The Hillmon doctrine allows a statement of then-existing intent to prove that the declarant later acted in accordance with that intent. The memory-or-belief limitation still bars any embedded factual recollection offered to prove the truth of the remembered event. A statement may be admitted under Hillmon for the intent component while the factual assertion remains excluded.
Supporting sources
The exclusion prevents circumvention of the hearsay rule by ensuring that a declarant's out-of-court recollection cannot be introduced merely by framing it as evidence of the declarant's state of mind. Without the limitation, parties could routinely smuggle factual assertions through the state-of-mind exception, undermining the reliability concerns that justify the hearsay prohibition.
Supporting sources