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Your email address will not be published.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
  • lawyers
    5.0/5.0

    Working with this firm was a great experience, they were very attentive to my case and needs ; the results of my case was better that I expected. Thanks to much to all the lawyers involved Sincerely S. Ponce

    Read more

    Client

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I loved collaborating with my attorney. From day one it felt like teamwork: us against the world, david vs. goliath. There was an easy rapport, free flow of communication, yet she remained the consummate professional at all times. As a first-time pla...

    Read more

    Oyie Ndzie

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Excellent Firm! I cannot give enough praise to Colleen Santora who handled our case . Responsive, professional a true attorney who cares. The entire firm put it all together however Colleen brought it all to the table . Five stars does not seem to sa...

    Read more

    ed thomas

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Atty Santora & staff were very responsive and handled my personal injury case with concern and professional care. I will recommend this firm for legal services.

    Read more

    Regina Benton

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I had a wonderful experience working with Robert Feinberg and Colleen Santoro. I never once had doubts about how my case would be handled. I knew I was in great hands with both of them. I was always informed and felt confident in their ability to re...

    Read more

    Betsy Rose

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form