Hearsay is one of the most confounding aspects of evidence law. Like it or not, evidence law mastery is a pre-condition of becoming a great trial lawyer, hearsay included. Consider then the phrase “goes to state of mind” in response to a hearsay objection. Many of us have heard that and wondered exactly what it meant. This article unpacks the multi-layered meaning and application of that phrase at trial.
Recall that hearsay is an out-of-court statement/assertion offered for the truth of the matter asserted. The most common meaning of the “state of mind” phrase is as an exception to the hearsay rule i.e. the state of mind assertion is offered for its truth. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) created an exception to the hearsay rule to make admissible a declarant’s then-existing state of mind. The rule includes statements as to a motive, intent or a plan. Per the rule, the statement has to be made in the present tense. A recollection or memory of a past mental state is inadmissible. Here’s an example of an admissible “state of mind” assertion …
- “I want you to have this land” (uttered by a grantor to grantee in a quiet title action to show intent).
Two other potential illustrations of the “goes to state of mind” hearsay response don’t implicate hearsay directly. The first of these “non-hearsay” responses is “mental input” testimony. Mental input is an out of court statement made by the witness on the stand being offered to show its effect on the state of mind of a listener. That state of mind obviously must be relevant to the plead issues in the case. Consider this example…
- “I told him his brakes were bad” (an auto repairman’s statement to the defendant in an auto negligence case where the brakes failed).
The other “non-hearsay” response to a hearsay objection is “mental output” testimony. Mental output testimony is offered to show that the clear and stated mind although the words are not offered for their literal truth. Here’s an example…
- “There are little green men on my lawn” (to show the incompetency of the declarant in a case where that’s at issue).
Hearsay can be one of the most challenging aspects of evidence law. This requires pre-trial trial scripting to anticipate potential hearsay objections. Trial lawyers should anticipate potential state of mind issues on both sides of the equation: the party objecting and the party responding to that objection. If you’d like to dig deeper into hearsay law, we offer a free downloadable eBook: Simplifying Evidence and a full CLE-accredited course by the same name.
