{"id":3111,"date":"2021-08-31T18:28:58","date_gmt":"2021-08-31T22:28:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=3111"},"modified":"2021-12-16T14:55:40","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T14:55:40","slug":"pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/","title":{"rendered":"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently stated, when dealing with hearsay \u201c[t]hings can get complicated\u00a0 pretty quickly\u2026At times, the line that divides hearsay from non-hearsay can be difficult to discern.\u201d\u00a0 Nowhere is that more true than with \u201cstate of mind\u201d hearsay; but a great deal of clarity has been brought to the issue as a result of the Court\u2019s decision in <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">, Pa., No. 6 MAP 2020 (July 23, 2021).<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-3112 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" \/><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The problem\u2019s origins are simple.\u00a0 The phrase\u00a0 \u201cstate of mind\u201d in evidence law has distinct but oft-conflated definitions.\u00a0 The first simply allows proof of what the person believes or feels <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">when that feeling or belief is relevant.<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u00a0 Examples abound:<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"1\" data-aria-posinset=\"1\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201cThe food at Giuseppi\u2019s is terrible.\u201d\u00a0 If we are trying to prove that the speaker\u00a0 would never eat there, this statement of what the person believes about the cuisine, whether right or wrong, is admissible and is not hearsay.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;134233279&quot;:true,&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li data-leveltext=\"\uf0b7\" data-font=\"Symbol\" data-listid=\"1\" data-aria-posinset=\"2\" data-aria-level=\"1\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201cI am Michelangelo, the great sculptor.\u00a0 A snail birthed me.\u201d\u00a0 If we are trying to prove the speaker is delusional\/insane, the words tell what the person\u2019s belief is, not that they are the great 16<\/span><span data-contrast=\"auto\">th<\/span><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> century artist.\u00a0 The words are not for their truth and thus not hearsay.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;134233279&quot;:true,&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The second is where the words express the person\u2019s state of mind and are offered to prove not just that the speaker holds this belief but that the belief is true.\u00a0 That is what Pa.R.Evid. 803(3) addresses and, except in cases involving a will, is limited to current feelings \u2013 \u201cI am tired,\u201d \u201cI feel angry\u201d \u2013 and future plans \u2013 \u201cI am going to the bank tomorrow.\u201d\u00a0 The rule expressly excludes statements of memory or belief such as \u201cI am angry at Jules <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">because last week he punished me.<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u201d\u00a0 The speaker is now asserting a memory \u2013 last week Jules punished them \u2013 and the statement may not be used to prove that memory.\u00a0 <\/span><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Otherwise, the ban on hearsay would no longer exist, because every out-of-court utterance would then be the speaker\u2019s state of mind.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">This dichotomy may seem simple, but it has eluded lawyers and judges for decades.\u00a0 Again, the Court acknowledged this in <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Fitzpatrick\u00a0<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> &#8211;\u00a0 \u201cwe first must distinguish between the two ways in which a declarant&#8217;s state of mind can be invoked as a basis for admitting a declarant&#8217;s out-of-court statement in a legal proceeding. The two often are conflated by courts and practitioners alike.\u201d<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The assertion in <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Fitzpatrick<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> was simple.\u00a0 In a troubled marriage, Annemarie Fitzpatrick wrote the words \u201cif anything happens to me \u2013 Joe\u201d on her day planner.\u00a0 That same day she died; and in the prosecution of her husband \u201cJoe\u201d for her murder, the prosecutor argued that her prediction proved true:<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Annemarie&#8217;s voice is here to tell you something else. On the day of her death, June 6, 2012, if something happens to me, Joe. Annemarie Fitzpatrick. If her voice is in this room, ladies and gentlemen, it&#8217;s on this side of the courtroom. And that&#8217;s what she wanted you to know.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">That this use of the planner note was for its truth can\u2019t be questioned; yet this eluded the Superior Court.\u00a0 As explained by the Supreme Court,<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">the Superior Court held that the note was hearsay that was admissible under the state of mind exception\u2014which would allow it to be offered for its truth as substantive evidence\u2014but then simultaneously concluded that it was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted and was not hearsay at all.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">To clear up the confusion, the Supreme Court set forth certain principles.\u00a0 The first was:<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 40px\"><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Nothing in the plain terms of the exception would allow, for instance, a party to introduce an out-of-court statement of one person to prove the intent, motive, feelings, pain, or health of another person. The bounds of the exception are limited to the then-existing state of mind of the declarant only.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;134233279&quot;:true,&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559685&quot;:720,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The Court went on to explain that the planner note had, in effect two messages \u2013 that the wife was distressed over the state of the marriage and her belief that Joe \u201cwould be the perpetrator\u2026\u201d\u00a0 The latter, indisputably, went beyond the reach of 803(3) because it is a statement of belief as to Joe\u2019s intent and conduct.\u00a0 And that was what the prosecutor argued.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Another principle explained by the Court is that the declarant\u2019s statement must have relevance, and largely limited that to three conditions: the defense is claiming self-defense, in which the victim\u2019s stated fear of the defendant refutes the claim of the victim being the first aggressor; where the defense is that a suicide occurred and the victim made statements inconsistent with a suicidal intent; and to refute a claim of accident.\u00a0 Each of these exceptions itself is subject to 403 considerations.\u00a0 Otherwise, \u201cin the typical prosecution, a victim&#8217;s state of mind simply is not relevant.\u201d<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">The final<\/span> <span data-contrast=\"auto\">rule \u2013 and that which governed Fitzpatrick\u2019s case \u2013 is simple and clear.\u00a0 If the victim\u2019s statement includes what the Court called a \u201cfact-bound\u201d component, <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">i.e.<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">, a statement of what a third party did or will do, that portion is inadmissible as beyond the limits of 803(3) and cannot be allowed even with a limiting instruction.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Mr.\u00a0 Fitzpatrick won a new trial; along with that Pennsylvania \u2018won\u2019 clarity in the use of state of mind statements.\u00a0 The <\/span><i><span data-contrast=\"auto\">Fitzpatrick<\/span><\/i><span data-contrast=\"auto\"> holding provides a detailed decision tree for lawyers and judges;\u00a0 and evidence law in Pennsylvania is now consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and the letter and intent of its hearsay rules.<\/span><span data-ccp-props=\"{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-contrast=\"auto\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently stated, when dealing with hearsay \u201c[t]hings can get complicated\u00a0 pretty quickly\u2026At times, the line that divides hearsay from non-hearsay can be difficult to discern.\u201d\u00a0 Nowhere is that more true than with \u201cstate of mind\u201d hearsay; but a great deal of clarity has been brought to the issue as a<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,7],"tags":[],"coauthors":[238],"class_list":["post-3111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy-and-evidence-blog","category-evidence"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The term &quot;state of mind&quot; as applied to out-of-court declarations confuses lawyers and judges. A new Pa. Supreme Court decision remedies that.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The term &quot;state of mind&quot; as applied to out-of-court declarations confuses lawyers and judges. A new Pa. Supreme Court decision remedies that.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-08-31T22:28:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-16T14:55:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\"},\"headline\":\"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-08-31T22:28:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:55:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\"},\"wordCount\":928,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Advocacy and Evidence Blog\",\"Evidence\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\",\"name\":\"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-08-31T22:28:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-16T14:55:40+00:00\",\"description\":\"The term \\\"state of mind\\\" as applied to out-of-court declarations confuses lawyers and judges. A new Pa. Supreme Court decision remedies that.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"description\":\"Just another Law Sites site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"width\":711,\"height\":220,\"caption\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\",\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"The term \"state of mind\" as applied to out-of-court declarations confuses lawyers and judges. A new Pa. Supreme Court decision remedies that.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"The term \"state of mind\" as applied to out-of-court declarations confuses lawyers and judges. A new Pa. Supreme Court decision remedies that.","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2021-08-31T22:28:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-16T14:55:40+00:00","author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/"},"author":{"name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e"},"headline":"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind","datePublished":"2021-08-31T22:28:58+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:55:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/"},"wordCount":928,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg","articleSection":["Advocacy and Evidence Blog","Evidence"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/","name":"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg","datePublished":"2021-08-31T22:28:58+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-16T14:55:40+00:00","description":"The term \"state of mind\" as applied to out-of-court declarations confuses lawyers and judges. A new Pa. Supreme Court decision remedies that.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/aer\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/state-of-mind-7-31-21-300x300.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2021\/08\/31\/pennsylvania-has-a-clear-state-of-mind\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pennsylvania Has A Clear State Of Mind"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Just another Law Sites site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","width":711,"height":220,"caption":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e","name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3111"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3111\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3298,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3111\/revisions\/3298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3111"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}