Opinion ID: 882631
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statement 4: Then-existing State of Mind.

Text: The trial court admitted statements 4-6 as non-hearsay statements made by a co-conspirator under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), M.R.Evid. On appeal, the State presents an alternative basis for admitting each statement. We conclude that if Foster's statements do not violate hearsay rules or defendant's right to confrontation, we will affirm the decision of the trial court regardless of its basis in admitting the statements. Phillips v. City of Billings (1988), 233 Mont. 249, 252, 758 P.2d 772, 774. The State contends that statement 4, Foster's explanation for feigning intoxication during the police interrogation related to his then existing mental or emotional condition. Thus, it was properly admitted under Rule 803(3), M.R.Evid.: Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, ...), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed. Here, after giving Foster a breathalizer test, police asked him why he was faking intoxication. Foster's self preservation statement was not to prove a fact remembered or believed, but a spontaneous response to his contemporaneous conduct of acting intoxicated. It explained the motivation for engaging in that conduct. Thus we conclude that Foster's self-preservation statement falls within the hearsay exception of Rule 803(3), M.R.Evid. Next, defendant argues that by admitting this statement the trial court violated her right to confront the declarant. State contends admitting this statement did not violate defendant's right to confrontation. We agree that this statement meets the Weinberger criteria. First, Foster's statement was not crucial to the prosecution. The statement was based on his personal knowledge. The statement did not attempt to shift blame to the defendant. It was spontaneous and tended to show the defendant's involvement in the conspiracy only when linked to other testimony. Finally, this statement falls within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Weinberger, 204 Mont. at 298, 303, 665 P.2d at 213, 215. We hold that the admission of statement 4 neither violated the Rules of Evidence nor violated defendant's right to confrontation.