Intro to the Federal Rules of Evidence - 59

4. Then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition (FRE 803(3))
a. Statements of physical condition
“ … physical condition (such as … pain and bodily health)….”
i) Requirements
1) Then
“I have a terrible headache”: Admissible
“I had a terrible headache yesterday”: Inadmissible.

2) Spontaneity
It is interpreted that the exception requires spontaneity of a statement to prevent the manufacture of evidence. The mere fact that the statement refers to the declarant’s present condition will generally be sufficient to meet the requirement of spontaneity unless there are particular reasons to suspect that the evidence is manufactured.

3) To layperson
When a statement is made to a doctor, FRE 803(4) may be applied.

4) Statement about pain
The statement must be ones about pain. A statement by the declarant to a non-doctor that reports identifying the precise medical condition will probably be excluded on grounds that it is an uninformed opinion or made without firsthand knowledge: e.g. “my leg must be broken.”

b. Declarant’s then mental state
i) Justification
Such statements are considered more trustworthy because they are probably spontaneous and because the declarant usually has no motive for insincerity and no loss of memory.

ii) When a state of mind is directly in issue
Declarations of existing state of mind are admissible when the declarant’s state of mind is directly in issue and material to the controversy.

When a statement is merely circumstantial evidence of the declarant’s state of mind, rather than a direct assertion of the declarant’s state of mind offered to prove the matter asserted (that state of mind), the statement is not hearsay. Such a distinction, however, has no significance: in either case, statements are admissible.

1) Present state
The rule applies only to statements about the declarant’s then existing mental state.
“I hate my husband, Norman.” - admissible
“Yesterday after I had a big fight with Norman, my hatred of him grew to new heights” - inadmissible.

iii) Proof of Subsequent act
“… then existing state of mind… (such as intent, plan, motive, ….)”

This exception applies when such an out-of-court statement to prove that a subsequent act took place, where the act is at issue.

In general, out-of-court statements which tend to prove a plan, design, or intention of the declarant is admissible to prove that the plan, design, or intention of the declarant was carried out by the declarant.

iv) No proof of prior acts
“[B]ut not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed….”

The state of mind exception does not apply to statements of memory or belief about past actions or events, whether the past action was by the declarant (“I believe that I went to the store yesterday”) or by another (“I believe that Dr. Shepard has poisoned me.”)

1) Execution of will
“… unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will.”

The ban on memory and belief statement is no applied to a person’s statements relating to his own will.

This special exception exists simply because there is often a great need for it – no one else can know the decedent’s wishes as well as the decedent, and he is of course not available.