CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay Exceptions re Statements
......State of Mind or Physical State
 32 Cards On This Topic:
  • State of mind, emotion or physical sensation exception to hearsay rule.
  • Statements by minors who are victims of child abuse or neglect for medical purposes admissible.
  • No error in court's allowing shooter's statement to V [please, lady, don't die], heard by O, admitted for all purposes, including its truth, and shooter's other statements would be admissible to impeach the statement O heard.
  • Notes prepared by coD for gang meeting D attended, saying gang members should kill more people, was properly admitted to explain D's state of mind when he shot Os as he was preparing to shoot a rival gang member.
  • As trial court correctly admonished jury not to infer that threats against W were connected with D in any way, there was no reason to believe the jury would consider them for any reason but to evaluate W's state of mind.
  • Evidence of decedent's state of mind (EC 1250) can be relevant to D's motive, but only if there is independent, admissible evidence D knew of decedent's state of mind before the crime and may have been motivated by it.
  • W's testimony that V said she preferred Black men properly admitted under EC 1250: There was evidence D had sex with V on night of murder and testimony relevant to show V would not have consented to sex with D, who was White.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion to extent it admitted V's statement she feared D for its effect on D though communicated to him 7 mos. before murders; harmless error to admit stmt under EC 1250 where V's state of mind not at issue.
  • V's statements she feared D and believed he was in her house while she napped were relevant and properly admitted under EC 1250 state of mind exception, to explain her subsequent action in jerking away from him.
  • V's emotional statement to friend on day of her murder about D's fondling of her and her intent to confront him was admissible under state-of-mind exception to hearsay rule.
  • D's claim that W fabricated his confession put her state of mind in issue—because her fear of D tended logically to provide a legitimate reason for her withholding his confession, her statements admissible.
  • W statement that murder V told her, as she left on trip with D, "If you don't hear from me in two weeks, send the police," properly admitted under state-of-mind hearsay exception.
  • In robbery/burglary- murder case, V's statements re her fear of D offered to prove fear going to lack of consent to entry and came within state-of-mind hearsay exception.
  • Mother's statements that V feared someone other than D not made admissible by Evid. Code §1251 where D sought to introduce them to suggest factual basis for state of mind.
  • W's testimony re deceased V's statements properly admitted under state-of-mind exception; mere possibility W spoke falsely not enough to negate trustworthiness.
  • W's testimony that her daughter told her H had threatened to euthanize their dog was properly admitted to explain daughter's state of mind.
  • Error to allow V's statements to Ws under EC 1250 as V's state of mind was not relevant, but the error was not prejudicial where evidence of guilt overwhelming.
  • Murdered W's out-of-court statements that she feared H properly admitted where her mental state was placed in issue.
  • Trial court properly admitted W's statements concerning D's assault on the dog as circumstantial evidence of her state of mind and her concern for her and Cs' safety.
  • No error in admitting under EC 1250 a security guard's testimony as to D's prior violent, misogynistic and "generic threats" to shoot women.
  • Eyewitness' stmt (which made D angry) was properly excluded where it had nothing to do with eyewitness' state of mind and no relevance to the case.
  • Because jury accepted D's defense of imperfect self-defense, V's fears were relevant, her statements admissible under EC 1250 state of mind exception, did not violate his confrontation rights and were not prejudicial.
  • Witness' testimony re murder V's prior statements properly allowed under state of mind exception to hearsay rule for purpose of impeaching D's claims about V's state of mind on night of murder.
  • V's stmts re D's prior conduct, inadmissible if offered to prove events occurred, properly admitted re V's state of mind; Rule of Hamilton abrogated by Evidence Code and Calif. Const.
  • Error to admit hearsay stmts of murder V under Evid. Code §1250 where V's state-of-mind neither at issue nor factually relevant.
  • Statements of willingness to kill for hire, made prior to murder, admissible to show identity & then-existing state of mind; also, overwhelming evidence made any error harmless.
  • Statement not made in a natural manner and under suspicious circumstances is untrustworthy and inadmissible under state of mind exception.
  • State of mind exception cannot be used to prove fact remembered or believed; prior writing made at time of event not admissible as state of mind exception.
  • Where statement offered under state-of-mind exception untrustworthy and where need for cross-examination on that statement compelling, may be excluded.
  • Deceased's statements properly admitted to explain state of mind (intent) re life insurance policies.
  • Sexual abuse victim's statements to doctor and investigator re dates of assaults and D's identity properly admitted as hearsay exceptions (FRE).
  • Hearsay exceptions regarding state of mind/physical state.


    •