Opinion ID: 1160882
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The lethal situation statement falls within the state-of-mind hearsay exception.

Text: Alaska Evidence Rule 803(3) allows admission of [a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind ... offered to prove [her] present condition or future action. Evidence of a murder victim's fear of the accused is inadmissible if its only relevance is as circumstantial evidence of the accused's conduct, that is, if its probative value depends on the impermissible inference that, because the victim feared the accused, the accused likely did something or planned to do something to justify the fear. [8] To admit such evidence, the State must establish that the evidence is directly relevant to some genuinely disputed issue. [9] We must thus determine whether the superior court allowed the statement for a permissible purpose: to prove Diane's state of mind or plan for future action. The court of appeals recognized that the WISH employee's testimony was relevant to show . . . that [Diane] had made up her mind to obtain a divorce from her husband and was taking steps to obtain a divorce, thus supporting the State's theory of motive for murder. But it apparently concluded that Diane's intent to divorce Ronald was not a disputed issue at trial. We disagree. Ronald argues that Diane's fear of her husband was not relevant to any disputed issue at trial because everyone agreed that Diane was determined to seek a divorce from Ronald. But Ronald's closing argument belies his current assertion that he never disputed Diane's intent to divorce him and the seriousness of her purpose: Now we just talked about suspicion and conjecture. There is no question but that there was some discussions between Ron Wyatt and Diane Wyatt about the state of their marriage, and there['s] no question and it's not that uncommon that they've been married for seven years or nine year[s], that there was serious problems ongoing. But nono divorce papers, no dissolution papers. Basically,andand it may bewell be true that she was going to divorce him. And sure it's suspicious if someone's going to divorce someone and they get killed. Butbut that's not proof. . . . There's some divorce talk. What marriage ... that goes on for seven to nine years doesn't have some divorce talk in it. What person that truly loves another person doesn't hope for a reconciliation. Thus, Ronald disputed at trial that Diane seriously intended to divorce him. To prove either of the State's theories of motive for murderthat Ronald feared losing control of Diane or Diane's moneythe State also had to convince the jury of Diane's intent to divorce Ronald. As the State argues, Diane's fearfulness of Ronald's reaction served as a tangible measure both of how serious she was about obtaining a divorce and of the likely imminence of her action. Ronald undercut Diane's seriousness of purpose by asserting that the evidence of her desire for a divorce was simply idle talk where both persons may have hope[d] for a reconciliation. Thus, evidence of Diane's determination to divorce Ronald despite any fear of a lethal situation demonstrated the seriousness of her purpose and intent and was therefore probative of her state of mind and plan for future action. Accordingly, the court of appeals should have ruled that the statement was admissible unless it was used for a forbidden purpose. The court of appeals correctly stated that the testimony was not admissible to prove that [Ronald] likely did something or planned to do something to justify Diane's fear. But that is not the purpose for which the superior court admitted the evidence. In fact, the prosecutor never mentioned the lethal situation statement in his over one-and-a-half-hour closing argument. He only referred to the WISH employee's testimony as proof that Diane intended to divorce Ronald and that Ronald must have forged checks drawn on Diane's account and cashed to a joint account in the last month of her life in anticipation of the divorce: So the day in which she makes an appointment with WISH, the day in which she has decided . . . to get out of this marriage, two weeks after telling a therapist in the presence of her husband[, ]I want out,[]. . . she's going to write a check to a joint account with her and her husband? The prosecutor then immediately moved on to another point and never again mentioned the testimony of the WISH employee. The trial court also provided a limiting instruction to the jury on the testimony during the trial. Shortly after the prosecutor began to question the WISH employee, Ronald again objected to the testimony and asked for a cautionary instruction. The court then advised the jury: The testimony that's being offered in this case, Ladies and Gentlemen, has been allowed for the limited purpose relating to the possible state of mind of Diane Wyatt at the time that she made the statement to these people, if you find that she made the statement. You may not consider it in any fashion for the truth of the matter asserted. And it's being offered to show that she went to this organization to get help with respect to obtaining divorce, as I understand it, and not for any other purpose. Thus, the State did not use this evidence to establish that Ronald was in fact planning to harm her and that he did so. [10] Because the parties disputed the seriousness of Diane's intent to seek a divorce, the court of appeals erred in ruling that the state-of-mind exception did not cover the lethal situation statement.