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


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.

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

Posted in *All Posts, *Published case, Evidence, Hearsay