Opinion ID: 1796222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Hearsay Statement by the Victim

Text: For his final point of evidentiary error, Mr. Wyles asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the victim's father, Kenneth Matthews, to testify about statements his daughter made regarding her plans to withdraw money from an investment account. In order to show motive, the State sought to prove that Mr. Wyles killed his wife and then withdrew funds from her investment account. Mr. Matthews's testimony was offered to show that Lisa Wyles would not have allowed the funds to be withdrawn. At trial, when Mr. Matthews testified that he had a conversation with Lisa on October 13, 2001, concerning her investments, Mr. Wyles objected on hearsay grounds. The State retorted, arguing that the victim's hearsay statements were admissible as an existing mental condition under Ark. R. Evid. 803(3). The court overruled Mr. Wyles's objection, and Mr. Matthews testified as follows: I asked her, Honey, are you losing money [in the stock market]? She said, Yeah, daddy, I lost between 3 and $500 already. I said, Why don't you put it in a CD. At least you won't lose all of it. She said, I can't. I just renewed it up. I would lose a third or a half of it, and I'm, saving up the money to buy Trisha a car. Mr. Wyles argues that these hearsay statements by the victim were not testimony concerning her intent to do something in the future as she simply did not intend to do anything with her investments but leave them as they were. Under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 803, the following type of evidence is not excluded by the hearsay rule: 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, pain, and bodily health.... Ark. R. Evid. 803(3) (2003). We have explained that the exception in Rule 803(3) allows for the admission of state-of-mind testimony concerning a victim's intent to do something in the future. Jones v. Abraham, 341 Ark. 66, 15 S.W.3d 310 (2000); Nicholson v. State, 319 Ark. 566, 892 S.W.2d 507 (1995). The hearsay statements at issue in this case relate to the victim's intent to save money in her investment account to buy her daughter a car. Saving money to buy a car certainly reflects an intent to do something in the future. We cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion.