- 11 -
state of mind exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid.
803(3). The testimony of the witnesses involved decedent’s state
of mind at the time the powers were executed; the witnesses were
credible, and the testimony regarding decedent’s intent was
relevant to the interpretation of the powers. See Mutual Life
Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892); United States v.
Emmert, 829 F.2d 805, 809-810 (9th Cir. 1987). In light of our
ruling, we do not, and need not, decide whether the testimony is
admissible under rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
B. Respondent’s Parol Evidence Objection
Respondent also contends that the testimony of Ms. Thompson
and Mr. Walker is inadmissible under Oregon’s parol evidence rule
because the testimony is being offered to prove that Ms. Thompson
was authorized by the powers of attorney to make gifts when, in
fact, the powers of attorney contained no such provision.
Petitioner contends that the parol evidence rule may not be
invoked by a litigant who is not a party to the agreement and
that, in any event, the testimony is offered solely to assist
8(...continued)
the decedent’s daughter and attorney that the decedent intended
her powers of attorney to include the power to make gifts of her
property is inadmissible hearsay.” We are not convinced that any
of the examples cited by respondent are hearsay. See Fed. R.
Evid. 801. Nevertheless, we address respondent’s argument.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011