Comment by Joseph A. Devall, Jr.
The Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence began an in-depth study as to whether Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence should be more narrowly defined. The scope of the state of mind hearsay exception is undetermined; thus, it is subject to various interpretations. Most courts construe the rule broadly, allowing hearsay to prove a third person's future conduct. However, courts in Louisiana forbid such a prejudicial inference. Allowing hearsay to show a nondeclarant's future conduct destroys the purposes behind the hearsay rule: trustworthiness and accuracy. This Comment explores the history of the state of mind exception. The jurisdictions that have squarely dealt with this issue are examined. Finally, the argument is made that the scope of the rule should be limited.
About the Author
Joseph A. Devall, Jr. J.D. candidate 2004, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 1999, McNeese State University.
Citation
78 Tul. L. Rev. 911 (2004)