---
title: "Then-Existing Mental or Emotional Condition (FRE 803-3)"
type: Legal Rule
source: https://casebriefly.com/legal-rules/then-existing-mental-or-emotional-condition-fre-803-3
---

# Then-Existing Mental or Emotional Condition (FRE 803-3)

A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition is admissible as a hearsay exception. This includes statements of intent, plan, motive, or design, which may be used to infer subsequent conduct.

## Definition

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) creates a hearsay exception for statements of the declarant's then-existing state of mind, emotional, sensory, or physical condition. This covers expressions of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or bodily health. The rationale is that a person's contemporaneous description of their own mental or physical state is considered reliable because they are uniquely positioned to know their own feelings and the contemporaneity requirement reduces the risk of fabrication.

One of the most significant applications of this exception is the Hillmon doctrine, derived from the Supreme Court's decision in Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon. Under this doctrine, a declarant's statement of intent to do something in the future is admissible to prove that the declarant actually carried out the intended act. For example, 'I plan to go to Denver tomorrow' is admissible to prove the declarant went to Denver. The controversial extension is whether such a statement can also prove the conduct of a third party — for example, 'I plan to go to Denver with Bob' to prove that Bob also went to Denver. Courts are divided on this point.

The exception has an important limitation: it does not include statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered or believed, unless the statement relates to the declarant's will. This prevents parties from using state-of-mind statements as a backdoor to introduce what are essentially statements about past facts. For example, 'I believe Bob hit me' would not be admissible to prove Bob committed the assault, because it is a statement of belief about a past fact. But 'I am afraid of Bob' would be admissible to prove the declarant's emotional state.

## Elements

- The declarant made a statement of their then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition
- The statement reflects a present state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (not past memory or belief)
- The condition described is relevant to an issue in the case
- Statements of intent, plan, motive, or design are included and may be used to infer the declarant's subsequent conduct
- Statements of memory or belief are excluded unless they relate to the declarant's will
- The declarant's availability as a witness is immaterial

## Key Case

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892)

## Landmark Cases

| Name | Citation | Significance |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon | 145 U.S. 285 (1892) | Established that a declarant's statement of intent to do a future act is admissible to prove the declarant carried out the act — the foundational 'Hillmon doctrine.' |
| Shepard v. United States | 290 U.S. 96 (1933) | Held that statements of memory or belief about past events do not qualify under the state-of-mind exception — 'Dr. Shepard has poisoned me' was a backward-looking accusation, not a present state of mind. |
| United States v. Pheaster | 544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976) | Extended the Hillmon doctrine to allow the declarant's statement of intent to prove the conduct of a third party with whom the declarant intended to act — the controversial 'Pheaster extension.' |
| United States v. Houlihan | 92 F.3d 1271 (1st Cir. 1996) | Discussed the limits of the state-of-mind exception, emphasizing that statements of belief about past facts are inadmissible even when framed as present mental states. |

## Exam Tips

- The key distinction is forward-looking vs. backward-looking: 'I intend to do X' (admissible) vs. 'I believe X happened' (inadmissible to prove X happened).
- When you see a statement of intent, consider the Hillmon doctrine — the statement can prove the declarant's subsequent conduct, but whether it proves a third party's conduct is contested.
- Remember the will exception: statements like 'I want to leave everything to my daughter' are admissible to prove the declarant's testamentary intent, even though they reference past or present beliefs.
- Distinguish this exception from present sense impression (803(1)) — state of mind covers internal feelings and intentions, while present sense impression covers perceptions of external events.

## Common Mistakes

- Using a state-of-mind statement to prove the truth of a past fact — 'I believe the defendant defrauded me' is not admissible to prove fraud under 803(3); it is a backward-looking statement of belief.
- Assuming the Hillmon doctrine extends to third-party conduct without qualification — most courts require additional corroborating evidence before admitting a declarant's intent to prove someone else's actions.
- Confusing this exception with the excited utterance — state of mind does not require a startling event or excitement; it covers calm, reflective statements of present feelings.

## Mnemonic Or Memory Aid

803(3) looks forward, not back. 'I plan to...' = admissible. 'I remember that...' = inadmissible (for truth of the memory).

## Related Rules

- present-sense-impression-fre-803-1
- excited-utterance-fre-803-2
- hearsay-rule-and-definition-fre-801
- dying-declaration-fre-804b2

---
Source: [Then-Existing Mental or Emotional Condition (FRE 803-3) — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/legal-rules/then-existing-mental-or-emotional-condition-fre-803-3)