Admitting Exculpatory Statements Using FRE 803(3)

Admitting Exculpatory Statements Using FRE 803(3)

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) contain various exceptions to the hearsay rule, which make certain out-of-court statements admissible despite being hearsay. One such exception is FRE 803(3), which allows statements concerning a declarant’s then-existing state of mind or emotional/physical condition to be admitted. This exception can be useful for criminal defendants seeking to admit exculpatory statements made by themselves or third parties.

Overview of FRE 803(3)

Under FRE 803(3), out-of-court statements are admissible if they relate to 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).” The rationale is that such statements are considered reliable and necessary, since the declarant’s state of mind at the time the statement was made cannot be easily proven through other means. However, statements regarding memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed are not admissible under this exception.

Using FRE 803(3) to Admit Exculpatory Statements

There are several ways criminal defendants can seek to admit exculpatory hearsay statements about their state of mind or that of a third party using FRE 803(3):

• To show lack of intent – For example, statements made by the defendant shortly before the alleged crime denying any intent to commit the crime or harm the victim.
• To show lack of motive – Statements indicating the defendant or a third party did not have a motive to commit the alleged criminal act.
• To show an alternate plan/intention – Statements suggesting the defendant or third party had planned to take actions inconsistent with committing the alleged crime.
• To show the defendant’s demeanor/state of mind shortly after the alleged crime suggesting innocence.

However, there are limitations. The statements must relate to the declarant’s state of mind at the time they were made rather than being too remote in time from the alleged crime. Also, the statements cannot explicitly deny commission of the crime or contain excuses/justifications, as that would cross into “memory or belief” used to prove a fact remembered or believed. But statements suggesting innocence without outright denial or excuses can potentially be admitted under FRE 803(3).

Case Examples

There are several examples where courts have admitted exculpatory statements under the state of mind exception in FRE 803(3):

• U.S. v. Dickey – The defendant’s statements that he would never hurt the victim were admitted to show lack of intent.
• U.S. v. Cardenas – Statements that the defendant did not intend to smuggle drugs were admitted under 803(3).
• U.S. v. Jackson – Testimony that defendant said he “didn’t mean to do it” was improperly excluded under 803(3).

However, the exculpatory statements cannot explicitly deny wrongdoing or provide excuses/justifications. So a statement like “I did not shoot him” would not be admissible. The key is offering statements suggesting innocence without outright denial of the acts.

Practical Considerations

There are some additional practical considerations when seeking to admit exculpatory statements under FRE 803(3):

• The statements must be relevant – They should relate to the defendant’s actual state of mind close in time to the alleged crime.
• Watch out for impermissible character evidence – The statements must pertain to then-existing state of mind rather than propensity/character.
• Be prepared to address trustworthiness concerns – Opposing counsel may argue the statements are self-serving and untrustworthy if made under suspect circumstances.
• Consider potential prejudice – If the exculpatory value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, the statements may be excluded under FRE 403.

With careful consideration of these issues and crafting statements that suggest innocence without outright denial, criminal defendants have a reasonable chance of successfully admitting exculpatory hearsay evidence under FRE 803(3)’s state of mind exception.

I hope this overview gives some guidance on how FRE 803(3) can be used to admit certain exculpatory statements in criminal cases. The key is focusing on then-existing state of mind rather than denial of acts or memory/belief of facts. With thoughtful arguments addressing relevance, trustworthiness, and unfair prejudice, such statements have been admitted by courts to support defendants’ claims of innocence.