Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Notes mutual life insurance co v hillmon not a case

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: are disappeared. Walked into the parking lot of a Palm Springs restaurant with the intention of meeting a man named Angelo who was supposed to deliver a free pound of marijuana. Never returned to his friends. Procedural Posture: Appellant argues that the District court erred in admitting hearsay testimony by two teenaged friends of Adell concerning statements made by Larry on the day he disappeared. Government attorney stated that the testimony was offered for the limited purpose of showing the state of mind of Larry. Court allowed the testimony with a limiting instruction (not offered to prove truth or falsity of what Larry said) Appellant claims that the Hillmon doctrine is different when the declarant's statement of intention necessarily requires the action of one or more of others if it is to be fulfilled. Issue: Is the evidence inadmissible under the Hillmon doctrine (now embodied in 803(3)), due to the fact that the declarant's statement of intention necessarily required the action of one or more ot...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online