.
Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:45 pm
.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=206893
gdane wrote: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"?Tom Joad wrote:gdane wrote: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.
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.DreamsInDigital wrote: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"?Tom Joad wrote:gdane wrote: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.
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?).
A smile goes a long way.Tom Joad wrote:T/F: Judges are influenced by PUA technique?
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.gdane wrote: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.
The DD and excited utterance theories in this case are a bit of a stretch, but you never know.thsmthcrmnl wrote: 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.
How would you get in the second part of the statement in under present sense impression?gdane wrote:The DD and excited utterance theories in this case are a bit of a stretch, but you never know.thsmthcrmnl wrote: 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.
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?