The day a woman died, a note was found on her day planner in her handwriting that read, “If something happens to me—Joe.” Needless to say, “Joe” ended up charged with murder. And in upholding the admission of the note found in the planner, the Pennsylvania Superior Court demonstrated, yet again, that the “state of mind” exception to the ban on hearsay, that found in Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(3), is all-too-often misunderstood or misapplied.

What is the state of mind exception? It has two components common to all hearsay—it must include an assertion and that assertion must be offered for its truth. And there is more. The assertion must satisfy the rule, which provides for a statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent or plan) or emotional, sensory or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.