Evidence · Hearsay
Words about the speaker's current feelings, pain, or plans come in — but not words about memories.
Words about the speaker's current feelings, pain, or plans come in — but not words about memories.
At breakfast, Priya tells her dad, "My stomach hurts, and I'm planning to skip soccer today." Dad trusts both statements. Nobody knows Priya's stomach better than Priya, right now. And her plan is the freshest possible news about what she'll do next. But suppose Priya says, "I remember Uncle Ravi promised me ten dollars last summer." That's different. Memories fade, warp, and get wishful. Courts trust a window into feelings now — not a rearview mirror into the past.
Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) excepts "[a] statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant's will." Under the Hillmon doctrine, a declarant's statement of present intent is admissible to prove the declarant later acted in accordance with that intent. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892). Courts divide on whether such a statement may also prove a third person's later conduct; many admit it only with corroborating evidence. The backward-looking bar comes from Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 (1933), which distinguished declarations of intention, "casting light upon the future," from declarations of memory, "pointing backwards to the past."
ELI-10 translation: "I feel" and "I plan" get in; "I remember" stays out, except for wills. [NJ-VARIANT: flagged for future Eli Explains NJ Law module]
Exam language: Examiners dress a backward-looking statement of memory or belief in state-of-mind clothing — "I believe my husband poisoned my tea last week" — and invite you to admit it under FRE 803(3) because belief is a mental state. The rule expressly excludes statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed; otherwise every recollection would smuggle itself in as a "belief." The reverse trap undersells the rule by excluding a forward-looking statement of intent that Hillmon squarely admits.
ELI-10: Check which way the words point. Pointing forward — "I'm going to" — comes in. Pointing backward — "I remember" or "I believe he did" — stays out.
Marcus is on trial for the murder of Vince, whose body was found at Harbor Pier. The prosecution seeks to prove Vince went to the pier on the night of March 3. It calls Vince's roommate, Owen, to testify that on the afternoon of March 3, Vince said, "I'm heading to Harbor Pier tonight to look at a boat." The defense objects that the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
How should the court rule?
(A) Sustain the objection, because Vince's statement is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (B) Sustain the objection, because a statement of intent cannot be used to prove subsequent conduct. (C) Overrule the objection, because Vince's statement of his then-existing plan is admissible to show he likely went to the pier. (D) Overrule the objection, because Vince described the trip while perceiving it.
Answer: (C). Vince's statement declared his then-existing intent, admissible under FRE 803(3), and under Hillmon a declarant's stated plan is admissible as evidence that the declarant later carried it out. It proves only Vince's own conduct, so the third-party complication never arises.
1 question here. Answers stay hidden until you check.
Educational content only. It is not medical, legal or professional advice. Found an error? Tell us.
