Recent Cases: Federal Jurisdiction. Construction of Uniform Laws in the Federal Courts

Evidence (2d ed.1923), § 1736; contra, Throckinorton v. Holt, i8o U.S. 552, 21 Sup.Ct. 474, 45 L. Ed. 663 (1goo).These are now regarded as a separate class.In re Shelton's Will, 143 N.C.218, 55 S.E.705 (igo6); Hutchins and Slesinger, Some Observations on the Law of Evidence -State of Mind to Prove an Act, 38 Yale L. Jour.283 (1929); Maguire, The Hillmon Case Thirty-three Years After, 38 Harv.L. Rev. 709, 715 n. 22 (1925).The state- ment, "Dr.Shepard poisoned me," on analysis means, "I believe that Dr. Shepard poisoned me."Hinton, States of Mind and the Hearsay Rule, i Univ.Chi.L. Rev. 394 (1934).This is using a hearsay statement to prove a state of mind, which is permissible according to Mitual Life Insurance Co. v. Hilhnon, 145 U.S. 285, 12 Sup.Ct. 909, 36 L. Ed. 7o6 (1892), and cases following it.State v. Journey, 115 Conn.344, 161 At. 515 (1932); State v. White, 52 Nev.235, 285 Pac.503 (1930); Commonwealth v. Marshall, 287 Pa.512, 135 Atl.301 ( 1926).The next step in the analysis is that since the deceased believed that Dr. Shepard poisoned her, it follows circumstantially that she believed that she did not poison herself.But the following step is that if she belieired that she did not poison herself, then as a matter of fact she did not.This step, involving the element of memory and possibly perception, dearly conflicts with the hearsay rule.It is just this step which the courts refuse to take in excluding evidence of overt acts to show belief as to a state of facts to prove the state of facts believed.State v. Piernot, 167 Iowa 353, 149 N.W. 446 (1914); Wright v. Doed.Tatham, 7 Ad.& Ell.313 (1837); 1 Wigmore, Evidence (2d ed.1923) § 267.The language of the opinion in refusing to accept the evidence was, nevertheless, unfortunate, for it was said simply that "the testimony now offered faced backward not forward."If the statement were used to show a present state of mind as the basis for an argument that that state of mind probably extended into the past, there would be no objection to it.State v. Hudspeth, 159 Mo.178, 6o S.W. 136 (19oo); Rawson v. Haigh, 2 Bing.99 (1824).Only when the argument is from past belief to the truth of the facts believed is it to be condemned.The argument has been made that if declarations are admissible to a show state of mind in order to prove a future act, then logically they should be admissible to show a state of mind in order to prove a past act.Seligman, An Exception to the Hearsay Rule, 26 Harv.L. Rev. 146 (1912).The present case is an excellent example of the answer thereto made by Professor Chafee, that when a declaration as to state of mind is used to prove a past act, it is apt to be in a testimonial form so that it is practically impossible for the jury to consider it as anything but a direct statement of the fact to be proved.Chafee, Review of Wigmore: Evidence, 37 Harv.L. Rev. 513, 519