State of mind hearsay exception vs. circumstantial evidence of state of mind definitional argument

WELCOME to my “Federal Rules of Evidence” program for students interested in the evidentiary rules that govern trials in federal court. "Federal Rules of Evidence" is a series of 12 playlists (with many videos) designed to introduce viewers to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), as well as evidentiary concepts and arguments under the FRE. The 12 playlist topics are set out below in this description.
This playlist covers FRE Rules in Article VIII (Hearsay exceptions). This video covers State of mind hearsay exception vs. circumstantial evidence of state of mind definitional argument - and this playlist (organized by FRE rule/concept) features the following videos:
 Rule 803 - the rationale behind the reliability exceptions
 Rules 803(1) & (2). Present sense impressions & Excited utterances
 Rule 803(3). ["Then existing"] State of mind
 Rule 803(4). Statements for medical diagnosis
 Rule 803(6). Business records
 Rule 803(8). Public records
 Rule 804. Exceptions to the rule against hearsay-unavailability of declarant
 Rule 804(a). Unavailability generally
 Rule 804(b)(1). Former testimony
 Rule 804(b)(2). Dying declaration
 Rule 804(b)(3). Statement against interest
 Rule 804(b)(5). Forfeiture
 Rule 805. Hearsay within hearsay
 Rule 806. Attacking and supporting the declarant’s credibility
 Rule 807. Residual exception
The channel features several videos within each of these 12 playlists:
 Intro to FRE Rules & Concepts *(start here)*
 Articles I & II - General & Judicial Notice.
 Article IV - Relevance & 403
 Article IV - Policy rules
 Article IV - Character evidence
 Article V - Privileges
 Article IV - Witnesses
 Article IV - Impeachment
 Article VII - Opinion testimony
 Article VIII - Hearsay - definition/exemptions
 Article VIII - Hearsay - exceptions
 Articles IX & X - Authentication & Original doc
ABOUT ME:
Professor Wes Porter served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Fraud Section, in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and the JAG Corps for the U.S. Navy stationed in the Trial Service Office Pacific. After lecturing and teaching as an adjunct professor for years, he moved to academia full-time teaching courses in Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, and skills courses like Trial Advocacy. Professor Porter earned tenure, became a full professor of law, and led a center devoted to evidence, litigation and trial skills training.
Professor Porter still teaches in law schools and trains lawyers new to the profession. To contact Professor Porter with questions or video topic requests, you may email him at [e-mail].
©Wes R. Porter 2020. All rights reserved.

[@HaleyyWhaleyy18]

Thank you! I'm studying for the bar and was stuck on how to differentiate between these two. Now I know, one is used for the truth of the matter asserted and the other is NOT, hence, non-hearsay. Again, thank you!

[@adamshingleton8759]

Amazing job on the non-hearsay state of mind vs. the hearsay exception for then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition. After three years of law school and lots of bar prep, I finally get the distinction.

[@beckybriggs309]

I love how you break all of this down! 10 stars!!!!

[@pokesauceemajin6622]

dude thank you im taking the bar in 1 month and i couldnt understand this at all, lol finally within the first sentence i immediately undersood it! thank you professor !

[@andrewcowin3815]

As an old lawyer (who rarely practiced), I've come to believe the Rules of Evidence are key to both the law and to clear thinking. Financial investments, law, foreign policy, investigative journalism ... it all comes down to "What do we know? And, how do we know what we know?" Everybody who wants to analyze anything should at least study the Rules of Evidence, imo.

[@professorporter]

Hear, hear

[@HBBILY]

OMG thank you so much! I take the bar in two days and I just couldn't understand the difference!

[@professorporter]

You're so welcome!

[@CarolettaMurtari]

Hey I was wondering if you could help me out. I live in a place with no adversarial system -we are making the change in some states- and I am participating in a mock trial as the prosecution. we are accusing a man of murdering his lover for fear she would have told his wife about the affair. We have a witness that says the accused told him that his lover had made this threat. However, when I plan the direct examination of the witness I fear the defene might object to that statement. Since it revolves around the state of mind of the accused and possible plan to murder his lover, could this be considered and exception to 803?

[@professorporter]

If you represent the prosecution and the statement about the affair is from the defendant, then it’s a statement by party opponent under 801(d)(2)(A).

[@adc9270]

"I nearly died when I heard the robber" is not a good example of circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and is dependent on when the declarant said it and who they said it to. For example, five weeks after the event to the police, not really evidence of a person's state of mind.

[@professorporter]

Yes, context matters. Where, when and to whom matters.
This is an educational channel … so what is your better example?