State of Mind Hearsay Exception

There's a hearsay exception for what the courts call "state of mind". It involves extrajudicial declarations "made by a person who cannot be called as a witness, and relied upon solely to show an existing intention or state of mind of the declarant, are admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule provided such declarations appear to have been made in a natural manner, not under circumstances of suspicion, and that they are material and relevant to the issue involved." This comes from a famous case in 2000 of Commonwealth v.  Begley.

The state of mind statements are not to be considered hearsay since they are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to prove the declarant's state of mind. Statements are admissible to show ill will or motive under the state of mind exception statements about what he declarant intended to do, that the declarant was afraid, hateful, or insane; and statements that the declarant intended to go to a certain place and meet a certain person, or that the declarant did not want to drive home.  In murder – rape prosecutions, statements by the deceased victim that she was a virgin and had never had oral sex were admissible as circumstantial evidence of her expected reaction to the defendant's advances.   You can get the point -- your Lehigh County criminal lawyer must know the rules behind "state of mind" exceptions and argue, if they are hurtful to your case, that there was an ability to contemplate issues and the statement was more premeditated.

Similarly, a deceased victims out-of-court statements evincing an intent to meet the defendant shortly before the killing were admissible under the exception as circumstantial proof that the victim acted in accordance with his or her stated intent, thereby providing the defendant with an opportunity to commit the crime in question. A murder victim's statement that he intended to confront the defendant was admissible as a state of mind exception. This was a case of Commonwealth v. Stallworth from 2001 where the victim sought a PFA order and allegations therein were relevant to establish the motive of the defendant.

Finally, in Commonwealth v. Laich from 2001, it was ruled that the trial court erred in admitting statements made by a victim to the effect that the defendant had said that if he ever caught her with another man he would kill them both. The victims state of mind concerning her relationship with the defendant was completely irrelevant to the defendants degree of guilt.