Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Issue is the evidence inadmissible under the hillmon

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: make two arguments to justify the admissibility of statements regarding then-existing mental, or emotional conditions when the state/condition of mind is "in issue" Only two hearsay dangers as opposed to four worthy argument but not really sufficient. Necessity o In these two categories of 803(3) you are dealing with only then-existing conditions....we assemble this trier of fact and our substantive law says one of these things they have to determine is this person's mental state. o Intent, affection or not, knowledge or not etc....wouldn't be unfair to deprive them of evidence of statements that that person made at the time about their statement of mind or body...because that's our choice, we are either going to exclude such statements or admit them. o If it's an element, it would be crazy not to allow the statements as part of the evidence, even though there are these risks (lying and ambiguity), but everybody knows these risks. UNITED STATES v. PHEASTER [Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial; Statements of declarant's present state of mind offered to prove subsequent conduct of the declarant in accordance with the state of mind FRE 803(3)] Facts: Son of multi-million...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online