State v. Richardson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 10-24-2012
  • Case #: A143148
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J.; and Duncan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule, OEC 803(3), does not allow for the admission into evidence of statements displaying a persons recollection of past intent and their subsequent current conclusions based on that intent.

Defendant appealed the trial court's ruling of admissions of evidence under the state-of-mind exception of the hearsay rule, OEC 803(3). The trial court denied Defendant's motion to exclude particular statements made by both the victim of the original crime and witnesses, ruling that the statements were admissible as they established the victim's past intentions and state of mind. Defendant argued that the statements were displaying the victim's beliefs and memories about her past state of mind, thus excluded under the state-of-mind exception. The State countered that the statements were admissible because it they asserted her past intentions and level of competence. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the state-of-mind exception applies to those statements used to prove a mental or emotional condition at the time the statements were made, the statements were inadmissible. The statements were intended to establish the victim's recollection of a past intention and her subsequent current conclusion, based on that recollection, of the past belief, thus not not qualifying under the exception. The statements should not have been admitted under OEC 803(3). Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search