Difference between certain non-hearsay and hearsay exception Forum

[sprinx]

Hey all,

I'm confused about a particular non-hearsay example and a hearsay exception. How is State of Mind listed as non-hearsay different from the Then-existing state of mind hearsay exception? Using barbri. Any help is appreciated!

[objctnyrhnr]

Hey all,

I'm confused about a particular non-hearsay example and a hearsay exception. How is State of Mind listed as non-hearsay different from the Then-existing state of mind hearsay exception? Using barbri. Any help is appreciated!

I’ll field this one. Speaking as a trial lawyer (prosecutor).

There are ways to get statements in that don’t fall into hearsay exceptions. The argument is that you’re not using them for their truth (ie not using them substantively). One common non-substantive way to use statements is to say that you’re using them to show state of mind or, in other words, to demonstrate to the jury that the witness had certain knowledge (in the form of statements by others) that caused him to do what he did. Typically these statements are accompanied by a limiting instruction by the judge, telling the jury not to take them for their truth.

The present sense impression hearsay exception is not one that my jurisdiction recognizes, but I know many do. This is a way of getting a statement in FOR ITS TRUTH (substantively) through a hearsay exception. As a result, this would not be accompanied by a limiting instruction. The hearsay exception has something to do with describing something that the witness observes happening in front of him, but I’m not super familiar with its specific requirements.

[Findedeux]

State of Mind as non-hearsay is used as circumstantial evidence of declarant's state of mind and is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There is no attempt to connect Declarant's state of mind with future conduct.
--"I am Julius Caesar" to prove Defendant is incompetent not to prove Defendant is actually Julius Caesar

State of Mind as a hearsay exception does use a present statement of intent to show someone did actually act in conformity with the intent expressed in their statement (through inferring that they acted on their intent). The statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (that's why it's relevant) but falls under a set of hearsay whose circumstances suggest the statements are reliable in spite of their hearsay character.

In the first category, it's the actual state of mind we care about (we want to prove he's incompetent) but in the second category is just a means to an end (we want to use it against him).

[Angel66]

State of Mind as non-hearsay is used as circumstantial evidence of declarant's state of mind and is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There is no attempt to connect Declarant's state of mind with future conduct.
--"I am Julius Caesar" to prove Defendant is incompetent not to prove Defendant is actually Julius Caesar

State of Mind as a hearsay exception does use a present statement of intent to show someone did actually act in conformity with the intent expressed in their statement (through inferring that they acted on their intent). The statement is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (that's why it's relevant) but falls under a set of hearsay whose circumstances suggest the statements are reliable in spite of their hearsay character.

In the first category, it's the actual state of mind we care about (we want to prove he's incompetent) but in the second category is just a means to an end (we want to use it against him).

This is a very clear and well-written answer. Thank you!

[sprinx]

Thanks yall!