Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Note rule 8033 applies only to a statement describing

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: ecause of Brett? All of these are states of mind or emotions of hers...but there's also the requirement as part of the cause of action, that the defendant had to have done something untoward or improper in order to induce this change in the married person. (i.e. just being lovable is not a tort). Facts coming out are not a state of emotion....her assertions out of court of Brett's conduct with her are simply inadmissible hearsay...containing all the hearsay dangers. If you had statements that were plainly only narratives of what Brett did, not joined with expressions of her feelings, as a result of those...those would be inadmissible. Where they are mixed, you have to give the jury a limiting instruction: "These statements are only admissible for the purposes of inferring the wife's state of mind, not what Brett did" o Court reverses, finding that the lower court did not appropriately give the jury this limiting instruction. Statement of present state of mind or emotion, offered to prove a state of mind or emotion of the declarant that is "in issue" in the case. In innumerable instances, the rules of...
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 at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online