Opinion ID: 2022208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Toni Leisure's testimony

Text: Leisure's testimony, recounting telephone conversations between herself and Cheryl regarding buying a dog for personal protection, contained both hearsay and non-hearsay statements. Cheryl told Leisure that she was soon to be alone, soon to be on her own, (R. at 990), indicating that she planned to live by herself in the near future. Leisure's testimony recounting this statement was admitted to show the truth of the matter, Cheryl's intention. As such it was hearsay; but it was clearly admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule because the statement expressed Cheryl's state of mind at that time, that she intended to leave her situation. The rest of the statementsabout wanting a gun and making sure she awoke in the morningalso portrayed Cheryl's state of mind. These statements, however, were used for non-hearsay purposes. These statements were admitted to show that Cheryl was fearful and unhappy, as opposed to the happy person depicted in defendant's opening argument. They were not admitted to show that Cheryl, indeed, wanted a gun or wanted to make sure she woke up in the morning. [1] Cheryl's statements of intent to live on her own and her expressions of fear were relevant. Defendant's counsel, in opening arguments, painted a picture of Cheryl and defendant as a happy, loving couple. He described the many hours they spent together quietly watching television and the love notes and other shows of affection constantly exchanged between them. Cheryl's statements to Toni Leisure had a likelihood of contradicting this picture of matrimonial bliss and, as such, shed light on an issue in the case. [2] We find no abuse of discretion in the admission of Toni Leisure's relevant testimonyone statement as hearsay which fell under the then existing mental state exception and the others for non-hearsay purposes.