Search Site
Menu

Statements of Intent

In Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Hillmon, the Supreme Court rendered a famous and controversial judgement concerning the admissibility of a person’s out-of-court statement. Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the famous Hillmon case, but it restricts its applicability. In Hillmon, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed evidence of person A’s statement of his intention to travel and, here is the controversial part, with person B. Perhaps, that was too broad an exception to the hearsay rule, which requires a judge to focus on reliable evidence. Consequently, by passing the Rule 803(3) hearsay exception, Congress restricted the use of such a statement to allow only for person A’s statement of intention as to what person A will do. That seems to make the most sense. After all, using person A’s reference to person B as evidence that the two men did actually travel together seems problematic. For example, Person B could have decided to part company with Person A immediately after the statement was made, or perhaps the two men never met to begin with and/or the statement was fabricated.

We are left with an eminently sensitive rule: a statement of a person’s own intention is admissible but not as to another person’s and, in no event, is a statement of memory or belief admissible. A statement of a memory or belief could be fabricated to cover up a crime or to get someone off the hook from civil liability. Certainly, a statement of intention can be deliberately misleading, but cross-examination may take care of that. Besides, a statement of intention is not determinative that the act actually happened; it is only an exception to the hearsay rule from which the trier of fact may infer that the intended act did take place. In other words, that statement of intention will advance the football but on its own will not get you into the endzone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feinberg & Alban, P.C. fervently protects your rights
  • The Boston firm of Feinberg & Alban, P.C. specializes its practice in the area of personal injury.

    The attorneys serve the entire state of Massachusetts in addition to affiliating with lawyers in other states to handle cases outside of Massachusetts.

  • $7.7 Million Award for Feinberg & Alban Client in Personal Injury Trial

    Boston Attorneys Win Highest Injury Verdict in Massachusetts in 2011 & 2012.

Client Reviews
  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Attorney Colleen Santora, was a pleasure to work with throughout my personal injury case. She makes the process seamless for her clients and is there to answer any questions you have. She negotiated every aspect of my case and got me the settlement I...

    Read more

    Cody

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    We were very pleased with all aspects of this law firm! My husband was struck by a truck while crossing the street. We hired attorney Colleen Santora of Feinberg & Alban PC. Colleen immediately showed empathy towards my husbands condition, aside fro...

    Read more

    Cleopatra Anderson

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Attorney Colleen Santora assisted me after a terrifying highway incident. She came to my home because I was not able to travel, and she remained compassionate, professional, and highly competent throughout my case. I would highly recommend retaining...

    Read more

    Susan Hawes

  • lawyers
    5.0/5.0

    I had a difficult liability case that Marsha Alban handled on my behalf. I was extremely happy with Attorney Alban’s communication with me throughout the claim and especiathe resolution of my claim. I highly recommend this firm as they are up for ...

    Read more

    Client

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Alexis was a pleasure to work with. She kept me informed every step of the process and always looked out for my best interests. I would definitely recommend her.

    Read more

    Joel K

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form