花都影视

Huntington v. Riversource, 7th Dist. Case No. 2012 CI 00038, 2015-Ohio-5600. After the trial court ruled that statements allegedly made by the decedent that she wanted the defendant to have a property's oil and gas interests were hearsay and inadmissible under Evidence Rule 804(B)(5), the defendant appealed arguing that the trial court erred in that the defendant's testimony was admissible pursuant to Rule 803(3). Rule 803(3) provides that a statement of a "then existing, mental, emotional, or physical condition" is not excluded by the hearsay rule. This includes statements "of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health)." This does not include statements "of memory or believed to prove the fact remembered or believed." Because Rule 803 is analyzed before Rule 804(B)(5), the appellate court determined that the statement as to what the decedent said when she deeded her oil and gas interests to the defendant represented her present state of mind. As such, some of the testimony was admissible pursuant to this analysis.