## Facts

- A husband sued an alleged paramour for damages based on alienation of affections and adultery with the wife (“criminal conversation”).
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the husband; judgment was entered accordingly.
- The evidence was sharply conflicting, with each side accusing the other of false testimony.
- The husband introduced testimony from a witness about the defendant’s alleged statements describing events the night before, supporting an inference of sexual relations and the defendant as an active aggressor; the defendant denied both the statements and any improper relationship.
- The husband also introduced multiple conversations with the wife in which she described receiving the defendant’s attentions (such as dining with him, riding in his car, and receiving flowers), expressed negative feelings toward the husband, and stated an intent to continue the relationship despite the husband’s objections.
- The wife’s statements were admitted even though the defendant was not present when they were made, and the jury was instructed in a manner the defendant argued permitted improper use of the statements.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported liability for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.
2. Whether the wife’s out-of-court statements were admissible only to show her then-existing state of mind, and whether the jury was adequately instructed not to treat embedded factual assertions as substantive proof against the defendant.
3. Whether any instructional and evidentiary error regarding the wife’s declarations was prejudicial in light of the disputed record.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California held that the record contained evidence which, if credited, could support liability; it declined to overturn the verdict on insufficiency grounds.
- The court held that the wife’s declarations were admissible for a limited purpose: to show her then-existing feelings, intentions, and mental state relevant to loss of affection and the condition of the marriage.
- The court held that the declarations were not admissible as proof that the defendant actually committed the acts asserted within them (e.g., dinners, rides, gifts), because those assertions were hearsay as to the defendant.
- The court concluded the trial court failed to give sufficiently clear and emphatic limiting instructions to confine the jury’s use of the wife’s declarations to the permissible state-of-mind purpose.
- Because the inadequate limitation created a substantial risk the jury used hearsay as substantive proof on central contested facts, the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- When a person’s intention, feelings, or other mental state at a particular time is material, that person’s contemporaneous declarations indicating that mental state are admissible notwithstanding the hearsay rule, but only for the limited purpose of proving the declarant’s then-existing mental condition.
- A statement admitted to prove state of mind may not be used as a backdoor method to prove the truth of separate, asserted historical facts that are otherwise inadmissible hearsay against an opposing party.
- Where evidence is admissible for a limited purpose but carries a high risk of misuse, the court must give clear limiting instructions that restrict the jury to the permitted use; failure to do so may constitute prejudicial error.
- A party’s own statements may be used substantively as admissions, in contrast to third-party declarations made outside the party’s presence, which generally cannot be used to prove the facts asserted.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the wife’s out-of-court declarations, though admissible to show her state of mind, were presented and explained to the jury without sufficiently strict limiting instructions, creating prejudicial risk that the jury treated hearsay assertions about the defendant’s conduct as substantive proof.


Adkins v. Brett, 184 Cal. 252, 193 P. 251 (Cal. 1920)