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Your email address will not be published.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 Santora was very attentive to the details of my case. She was prompt in returning either phone calls or emails. Her expertise aided me in making a decision. It was a pleasure to have her represent me.

    Read more

    Karen Trahan

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    It has been a pleasure working with Feinberg & Alban. I have used then in the past and they have always been both professional and kind in handling my cases and always with a successful outcome. They are a great group of lawyers.

    Read more

    Susan Bender

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Just wanted to give a review on my experience. My wife was a pedestrian when hit by a car. During that time it was very difficult. Colleen was helpful and understanding with what we were going through. She made the process easy for us to get compens...

    Read more

    David Handley

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    Colleen Santora is the attorney with Feinberg & Alban PC who represented me in my personal injury claim. She was very professional, kind, responsive and communicative throughout the entire process. It was a pleasure to work with her through this pr...

    Read more

    Debbie

  • google
    5.0/5.0

    I recently hired Robert Feinberg of Feinberg and Alban. He was professional, knowledgeable, compassionate, reliable and responsive. The results he brought me were truly amazing. I would highly recommend Robert Feinberg to friends and relatives. I ...

    Read more

    Joanie Bell

See all reviews
Awards & Affiliations
Contact us

Quick Contact Form