§ 10.11 DECLARATIONS OF STATE OF MIND OR EMOTION

• Jurisdiction: North Carolina

§ 10.11 DECLARATIONS OF STATE OF MIND OR EMOTION

[1] OFFERED TO PROVE STATE OF MIND OR EMOTION

One of the most difficult things for a trial attorney to prove is a person's state of mind. The attorney must usually rely on circumstantial proof such as conduct that evidences a certain state of mind. However, sometimes a person openly asserts his or her state of mind. Because of the difficulty of proving state of mind, the courts have been especially eager to admit any evidently sincere declarations of state of mind or emotion. These declarations often give us the best insight into the declarant's state of mind or emotion. Thus, the courts have developed a general rule that these declarations are admissible; if a person declares his or her then existing state of mind or emotion, the declaration is admissible to prove the existence of that state of mind or emotion. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) provides: "The following [is] not excluded by the rule against hearsay . . .: A statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional . . . condition (such as mental feeling)."

Ideally, the declarant will make the statement at the pivotal time under the substantive law. For example, under Real Property law, the grantor must have the intent to pass title when handing the deed to the grantee. If at the very instant of handing the deed to the grantee, the grantor announces the intent to pass title, the statement is certainly admissible. What if the grantor makes such a statement shortly before or shortly after the manual delivery of the deed? The courts still admit the statement on the theory of continuity of state of mind; there are no intervening events that would plausibly change the person's frame of mind, and the time lapse between the statement and the critical event is so short that we may reasonably assume that the declarant's state of mind was the same at both times.

The foundation for this doctrine is simple. The making of the statement by the declarant is an event. The proponent need establish only the normal foundation for an event:

1. Where the statement was made.
2. When the statement was made. The declarant must make the statement at or near the pivotal time under the substantive law.
3. Who was present.
4. Who made the statement.
5. The tenor of the statement.

Our fact situation is a quiet title action. The plaintiff, Ms. Sheila Morris, has brought suit against the defendant, Ms. Marilyn Winters. Ms...