NJ Family Issues

RSS | Comments RSS

To be admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the declarant’s state of mind must be in issue

Comments Off No Comments»
March 21, 2011 at 4:27 pm


Law Lessons from STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MELANIE McGUIRE, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div. 2011), A-6576-06T4, March 16, 2011:

Under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3), an out-of-court statement is admissible if it was “made in good faith of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health).” “Simply stated, the ‘state of mind’ exception to the hearsay rule allows admission of extrajudicial statements to show the state of mind of the declarant when it is at issue in a case.” State v. Benedetto, 120 N.J. 250, 255-56 (1990). “Particularly where the declarant is deceased, the rule is rooted in necessity and justified upon the basis that the circumstances provide a rational substitute for the benefit of cross-examination.” State v. Downey, 206 N.J. Super. 382, 390 (App. Div. 1986).

Many years ago in State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380 (1962), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 816, 83 S. Ct. 1710, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1963), our Supreme Court stated:

When a person’s engagement in a course of conduct or an act . . . is relevant to the resolution of a controversy over an occurrence which becomes the subject of subsequent litigation . . . declarations of the person of his present intention or plan to do so, are competent, substantive, and original evidence of his probable engagement in the course of conduct or act.

[Id. at 389.]

Recently in State v. McLaughlin, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2011), the Court stated that “to be admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the declarant’s state of mind must be ‘in issue.’” (Slip op. at 28) (quoting State v. Boratto, 154 N.J. Super. 386, 394 (App. Div. 1977), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 80 N.J. 506 (1979)).

When recommending adoption of this so-called Hillmon doctrine, see Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 294-300, 12 S. Ct. 909, 912-14, 36 L. Ed. 706, 710-12 (1892), the drafters of N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) retained in the rule a “good faith” requirement to provide discretion to trial courts to exclude out-of-court statements that are unreliable. See Biunno, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, 1991 Supreme Court Committee Comment on N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) (2008) at 773.





[print_link]

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to clients in Fanwood 07023; Garwood 07027; Kenilworth 07033; Mountainside 07092; New Providence 07974; Roselle Park 07204; Roselle 07203; Elizabeth 07201; Linden 07036; Plainfield 07060; Rahway 07065; Summit 07901; Westfield 07090; Berkeley Heights 07922; Clark 07066; Cranford 07016; Hillside 07205; Scotch Plains 07076; Springfield 07081; Union 07083; Winfield; Carteret 07008; Dunellen 08812; East Brunswick 08816; Edison 08817; Jamesburg 08831; Metuchen 08840; New Brunswick 08901; Old Bridge 08857; Perth Amboy 08861; Sayreville 08871; South Amboy 08878; South River 08877; Avenel 07001; Colonia 07067; Iselin 08830; Woodbridge 07095; Somerset 08873; Somerville 08876 and Watchung 07069, New Jersey.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.