Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State of Mind Exception

Text: Counsel's argument that the tape is state of mind evidence also fails. The express language of La.C.E. art. 803(3) excepts from the definition of hearsay only [a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition ... offered to prove the declarant's then existing condition or his future action.  (Emphasis added). Counsel did not offer the tape to prove the defendant's state of mind in the spring of 1994 when he made the statement to Dr. Warea matter never at issue. Rather, defendant offered the 1994 tape to try to show his state of mind two years earliera matter very much at issue. [A] state of mind evidenced by a speaker's remarks cannot be used to prove the speaker's past conduct. State v. Martin, 458 So.2d 454, 461 (La.1984) (citing Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933)). While there is some authority that evidence of a particular state of mind may look backward in time to prove the continuity of that state of mind, it is reasonable to require as a condition of invoking the continuity notion that the declaration mirror a state of mind which, in light of all the circumstances including proximity in time, has some probability of being the same condition existing at the material time. Where there is room for doubt, the matter should be left to the discretion of the trial judge. McCormick, Evidence, § 295, p. 696 (Cleary, ed., 1972). The tape was offered to prove the defendant's state of mind two years before he made the statement. There was substantial room for doubt as to whether the defendant's state of mind was the same when the tape was made as it was at the time of the crime. The taped statement did not come within the hearsay exception provided by art. 803(3) or any other exception to the hearsay rule. Under these circumstances, the trial judge correctly excluded the tape.