Hearsay and circumstances of its admissibility - Statements of mental, emotional, or physical condition

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the hearsay exception for statements of a declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). After reading this article, you will be able to identify statements admissible under this exception, distinguish them from inadmissible hearsay, apply the Hillmon doctrine regarding statements of intent used to prove future conduct, and recognize the limitations on using statements of memory or belief about past events. This understanding is essential for analyzing evidence admissibility in MBE fact patterns.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the hearsay rule and its exceptions. Regarding statements of mental, emotional, or physical condition (FRE 803(3)), you should be prepared to:

  • Define hearsay and its general prohibition.
  • Identify statements admissible under FRE 803(3) as describing a declarant's then-existing state of mind (motive, intent, plan), emotion, sensation, or physical condition.
  • Distinguish these admissible statements from inadmissible statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed.
  • Apply the rule allowing statements of intent (plan) to be used as circumstantial evidence of subsequent conduct (Hillmon doctrine).
  • Determine if the statement relates to the declarant's then-existing condition, not past conditions (unless made for medical diagnosis/treatment, a separate exception).
  • Recognize that the declarant's availability is immaterial for this exception.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. While searching for his missing wife, Husband told a police officer, "I remember my wife telling me last Tuesday that she was going to visit her sister in Chicago this weekend." If offered at a later trial to prove that the wife went to Chicago, this statement is:
    1. Admissible as a statement of the wife's then-existing state of mind (intent).
    2. Admissible as an excited utterance.
    3. Inadmissible hearsay not within the state of mind exception.
    4. Inadmissible because the wife is unavailable.
  2. Plaintiff sues Defendant for battery after Defendant punched him. Defendant claims self-defense. Defendant seeks to introduce testimony from Witness that, just before the altercation, Defendant told Witness, "I'm afraid Plaintiff is going to attack me." This statement is:
    1. Admissible to prove Defendant's then-existing state of mind (fear).
    2. Admissible to prove that Plaintiff was actually about to attack Defendant.
    3. Inadmissible hearsay, as it is offered for its truth.
    4. Inadmissible character evidence.
  3. Decedent wrote a letter to her friend stating, "I plan to drive to City X tomorrow to meet John." This letter is offered in a subsequent wrongful death action to prove that Decedent went to City X the next day. The letter is:
    1. Inadmissible hearsay.
    2. Admissible as a statement of Decedent's then-existing state of mind (intent) to prove her subsequent conduct.
    3. Admissible only if John testifies.
    4. Inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence that Decedent went to City X.

Introduction

Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls within a recognized exception or exclusion. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides a significant exception for statements concerning the declarant's state of mind or physical condition at the time the statement was made. This exception exists because such contemporaneous statements are considered relatively reliable, as the declarant has little time for reflection or misrepresentation regarding their internal state. Understanding the scope and limitations of FRE 803(3) is essential for evidence analysis on the MBE.

Key Term: Hearsay An out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Key Term: Declarant The person who made the out-of-court statement.

The State of Mind Exception: FRE 803(3)

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) allows the admission of:

"A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant's will."

This exception covers contemporaneous statements about what the declarant was thinking, feeling, or experiencing at the time the statement was made. The declarant's availability to testify is immaterial.

Key Term: State of Mind Exception A hearsay exception allowing admission of a statement describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind (e.g., motive, intent, plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (e.g., feeling, pain, health) at the time the statement was made.

Components of the Exception

FRE 803(3) encompasses several types of contemporaneous internal states:

  1. Then-Existing State of Mind: This includes statements about the declarant's motive, intent, plan, design, or mental feeling at the time the statement was made.

    • Example: "I intend to go to the store" (shows intent). "I hate him" (shows mental feeling/motive).

  2. Then-Existing Emotional or Sensory Condition: This covers statements describing the declarant's contemporaneous emotions or sensations.

    • Example: "I feel happy." "This tastes salty."

  3. Then-Existing Physical Condition: Statements concerning the declarant's bodily health or pain at the time of the statement.

    • Example: "My back hurts." "I feel nauseous."

The Hillmon Doctrine: Statements of Intent to Prove Future Conduct

A significant application of the state of mind exception involves statements of intent offered to prove that the declarant subsequently acted in accordance with that stated intent. This principle originates from Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892).

Key Term: Hillmon Doctrine The principle allowing statements of a declarant's intent (a then-existing state of mind) to be admitted as circumstantial evidence that the declarant later acted in conformity with that intent.

Under Hillmon, a statement like "I plan to travel to Crooked Creek tomorrow" is admissible hearsay under the state of mind exception to prove not only the declarant's intent to go but also as circumstantial evidence that the declarant actually went to Crooked Creek the next day.

Limitation: Statements of Memory or Belief (Shepard Rule)

A critical limitation under FRE 803(3) is that it does not permit the admission of "a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed." This limitation, established in Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 (1933), prevents the exception from swallowing the entire hearsay rule. If statements about past events based on memory were admissible, almost any hearsay statement could fit the exception.

  • Example (Inadmissible under Shepard): Declarant says, "Yesterday, I went to the bank." This is a statement of memory offered to prove the fact remembered (that Declarant went to the bank) and is inadmissible under FRE 803(3).
  • Compare (Admissible): Declarant says, "I intend to go to the bank tomorrow." This is admissible under 803(3) and Hillmon to show intent and subsequent action.

The only exception to the Shepard limitation is for statements relating to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant's will.

Worked Example 1.1

Plaintiff sues Defendant Bus Company for injuries sustained when a bus allegedly swerved violently. Plaintiff offers testimony from Witness, another passenger, who states that immediately after the swerve, she heard the bus driver exclaim, "I feel dizzy!" Is this statement admissible?

Answer: Yes. The driver's statement "I feel dizzy!" describes his then-existing physical condition at the time the statement was made. It falls directly within the FRE 803(3) exception for statements of then-existing physical condition. Its admissibility does not depend on the driver being unavailable.

Worked Example 1.2

In a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce testimony that the victim told her friend the day before the killing, "I am going to meet the Defendant tomorrow night at the old warehouse." Is this statement admissible to prove the victim met the Defendant?

Answer: Yes, partially. The statement "I am going to meet the Defendant tomorrow night..." reflects the victim's then-existing state of mind (her intent or plan). Under the Hillmon doctrine, this is admissible to show that the victim likely acted in accordance with her stated intent, i.e., that she went to the warehouse the next night. However, the statement cannot be used to prove that the Defendant went to the warehouse or met the victim there; Hillmon generally applies only to prove the declarant's subsequent conduct, not that of a third party mentioned in the statement. Some jurisdictions might allow it as evidence of the Defendant's conduct too, but this is a minority view and less likely to be the correct answer on the MBE.

Exam Warning

Be careful to distinguish statements admissible under FRE 803(3) from those that are mere narratives of past events or statements of memory or belief. For example, "My leg hurt yesterday" is a statement of past physical condition (memory) and inadmissible under 803(3) to prove the leg hurt yesterday (though it might be admissible under 803(4) if made for medical diagnosis/treatment). Contrast this with "My leg hurts right now," which is admissible under 803(3).

Summary

FRE 803(3) provides a hearsay exception for statements describing the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition. This includes statements of intent, plan, motive, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health made contemporaneously with the condition. Statements of intent can be used to prove the declarant's subsequent conduct (Hillmon doctrine). However, statements of memory or belief about past events are generally inadmissible under this exception (Shepard rule), except concerning the declarant's will. The declarant's availability is immaterial.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Hearsay defined as an out-of-court statement offered for its truth.
  • FRE 803(3) excepts statements of a declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition.
  • This includes intent, plan, motive, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health.
  • Statements of intent are admissible to prove the declarant subsequently acted in conformity with that intent (Hillmon).
  • Statements of memory or belief about past facts are inadmissible under 803(3) to prove the fact remembered (Shepard), except regarding wills.
  • The declarant does not need to be unavailable.

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Hearsay
  • Declarant
  • State of Mind Exception
  • Hillmon Doctrine
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
AdaptiBar
One-time Fee
$395
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
BarPrepHero
One-time Fee
$299
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Quimbee
One-time Fee
$1,199

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal