. Forum

[Myself]

.

[thsmthcrmnl]

"You will be prosecuted" you almost certainly wouldn't need for the truth — that either did or did not happen. It could come in to show he thought it. As for the /self, that, depending on what happened and what type of case this is, could be a dying declaration or a present sense impression or an excited utterance or a state of mind/intent.

[gdane]

Nah, wouldn't be dying declaration because the statement doesn't relate to the cause or circumstance of his impending death. Also, there was no impending death. Sure he was ready to kill himself, but he wasn't actually dying while he sent this text.

Not a present sense impression because he's not describing something he saw. Not an excited utterance for the same reason.

Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.

As for Confrontation Clause issues, I don't believe there are any here. The statement is not testimonial because it was not made to police to be used in a future prosecution. Because there's not testimonial statement issues, no need to cross the Declarant about this statement.

You could also try 807. That seems to work a lot of the times.

What do you think you could use this text for anyway? To prove that D extorted the declarant?

[Tom Joad]

Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.

[DreamsInDigital]

Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.

Hmm, I'm not sure this would fit under Hillmon. Is saying "killing myself now" the same as saying "I am planning on killing myself"?

Also, if they brought it in under this, it would really just be pretext because what they actually care about showing is an occurrence that CAUSED that state of mind (the blackmail). Therefore, I think it would be kept out (after doing the 403 balancing maybe?).

[gdane]

Could potentially be a statement of then existing mental condition to show the declarant's motive to commit a future event (kill himself). This follows from Hillmon.

Hmm, I'm not sure this would fit under Hillmon. Is saying "killing myself now" the same as saying "I am planning on killing myself"?

Also, if they brought it in under this, it would really just be pretext because what they actually care about showing is an occurrence that CAUSED that state of mind (the blackmail). Therefore, I think it would be kept out (after doing the 403 balancing maybe?).

You have a good point. This is what's great about evidence, you really never know the answer so you just try what you can and hope your judge is nice.

[Tom Joad]

T/F: Judges are influenced by PUA technique?

[gdane]

T/F: Judges are influenced by PUA technique?

A smile goes a long way.

[Myself]

I don't think it would come in under dying declaration because it's not a homicide or civil case.

[thsmthcrmnl]

Nah, wouldn't be dying declaration because the statement doesn't relate to the cause or circumstance of his impending death. Also, there was no impending death. Sure he was ready to kill himself, but he wasn't actually dying while he sent this text.

Not a present sense impression because he's not describing something he saw. Not an excited utterance for the same reason.

Seems the statement that you are killing yourself has to do with the circumstance of your death. Doesn't matter if he died, what matters is if he had a settled, hopeless expectation of death. I agree that present sense is less likely, but it's not implausible. He was, depending on what exactly happened, perceiving an event. Similarly, he could be excited by this event.

EDIT: And of course the DD stuff doesn't matter since it's not civil or homicide.

[gdane]

Seems the statement that you are killing yourself has to do with the circumstance of your death. Doesn't matter if he died, what matters is if he had a settled, hopeless expectation of death. I agree that present sense is less likely, but it's not implausible. He was, depending on what exactly happened, perceiving an event. Similarly, he could be excited by this event.

EDIT: And of course the DD stuff doesn't matter since it's not civil or homicide.

The DD and excited utterance theories in this case are a bit of a stretch, but you never know.

I still think present mental state is the best shot. Although, I'm still unsure what it would even be used for. To show that the D's extortion "killed" V?

[Myself]

Seems the statement that you are killing yourself has to do with the circumstance of your death. Doesn't matter if he died, what matters is if he had a settled, hopeless expectation of death. I agree that present sense is less likely, but it's not implausible. He was, depending on what exactly happened, perceiving an event. Similarly, he could be excited by this event.

EDIT: And of course the DD stuff doesn't matter since it's not civil or homicide.

The DD and excited utterance theories in this case are a bit of a stretch, but you never know.

I still think present mental state is the best shot. Although, I'm still unsure what it would even be used for. To show that the D's extortion "killed" V?

How would you get in the second part of the statement in under present sense impression?

[thsmthcrmnl]

You wouldn't. The second part can come in without being for the truth.