Also known as: then-existing state of mind · then existing state of mind · then-existing mental condition · then-existing emotional condition · then-existing physical condition · state of mind exception · state of mind hearsay exception · FRE 803(3)
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A hearsay exception that admits a declarant's out-of-court statement describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition. The exception excludes statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed unless the statement relates to the validity or terms of the declarant's will.
Tyler Taylor agreed to purchase a condominium from Tara Tran. The day before closing Tyler told his friend Tonya Takahashi that he absolutely planned to complete the purchase the next day no matter what. In the subsequent lawsuit over the failed sale Tara offers Tonya's testimony about Tyler's statement to show that Tyler rather than she backed out at the last minute.
Thomas Thompson drove a delivery truck for True North Logistics. While en route Thomas radioed dispatcher Trevor Tate that he planned to take the old mountain pass despite icy conditions to reach the warehouse faster. After the truck crashed on the pass Thomas's estate offered Trevor's testimony about the statement to show that Thomas acted in accordance with his expressed intent.
Pheaster and Inciso were tried together before a jury in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and convicted on November 21, 1974, on all twelve counts of an indictment. Count One charged both defendants with conspiring to kidnap and hold sixteen-year-old Larry Adell for ransom in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c). Counts Two through Twelve charged Pheaster with mailing six ransom-demand letters and five extortionate threat letters, and charged Inciso with aiding and abetting those mailings. Larry Adell disappeared on the evening of June 1, 1974, after leaving friends inside Sambo’s North restaurant in Palm Springs and walking into the parking lot to meet a man named Angelo who was to deliver a pound of free marijuana. Beginning at approximately 2:30 a.m. on June 2, Robert Adell, Larry’s father, received a series of ten typed and handwritten ransom letters, two telephone calls, and instructions for four separate ransom deliveries, all demanding $400,000. The instructions for the first delivery arrived late on June 9, the second failed on June 12 when Mr. Adell demanded more assurances of release, the third on June 23 was aborted due to monitoring of the site, the fourth on June 30 produced no contact, and no further communications were received from the kidnappers. FBI agents arrested Pheaster and Inciso on July 14, 1974, after both had been under surveillance. Immediately after his arrest Pheaster made incriminating statements during a car ride to the county jail and led agents to a typewriter, pistol, and other items. Officer John W. Turley identified Pheaster’s voice on a tape recording of one ransom call after being shown only that recording. Agents also obtained dictated handwriting exemplars from Pheaster that reproduced spelling errors appearing in the ransom notes. A search of Pheaster’s apartment pursuant to warrant and a search of Inciso’s residence pursuant to warrant, together with a warrantless search of Pheaster’s automobile, yielded additional physical evidence. At trial the government introduced hearsay testimony from two of Larry Adell’s friends recounting his statements on June 1 that he intended to meet Angelo at Sambo’s North that evening. The government also introduced testimony from Mrs. Elmyra Mapes concerning statements Pheaster made to her about the kidnapping scheme and his dealings with Inciso. After the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, Pheaster received concurrent life and seventy-year sentences and Inciso received the same sentences; both defendants appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
View caseNo. The exception applies regardless of whether the declarant is available to testify at trial.
Supporting sources
Yes. The exception admits statements describing the declarant's then-existing physical condition even when the statement is made casually to a companion rather than for medical diagnosis or treatment.
Supporting sources
No. The statement may be admitted only to show the declarant's own contemporaneous mental emotional or physical condition. It may not be used to prove the truth of any fact remembered or believed.
Supporting sources
A statement of then-existing intent or plan is admissible to prove that the declarant subsequently acted consistently with the stated intent under the Hillmon doctrine.
Supporting sources
The exception bars admission of any memory or belief component when it is offered to prove the fact remembered or believed. A limiting instruction may be required if the statement contains an embedded factual assertion.
Supporting sources
…rule for the following evidence: “ Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the…