Opinion ID: 1816960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allowance of John L. Gartin's Wills as Evidence of Intent.

Text: Appellant also contends the district court erred in allowing John L. Gartin's wills as evidence of his intent to assert the present claim against her. This objection was based on grounds of hearsay and relevancy. We believe that these writings were properly received to prove the declarant's intention concerning appellant's debt to him at the time the statements were made. As such, they fall under the rule of admissibility contained in Iowa Rule of Evidence 803(3). That rule provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: . . . . (3) . . . A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of declarant's will. Rule 803(3) applies both when the declarant is available and when the declarant is not available. Although it does not allow statements of memory to prove the fact remembered, it does allow statements evidencing existing state of mind when that state of mind is relevant to the issues. In the present case, such evidence is relevant to rebut the alleged intent to forgive the debt. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the decision of the court of appeals should be vacated and the judgment of the district court affirmed. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.