Adkins v. Brett
193 P. 251 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a declarant's state of mind is a material issue, their out-of-court statements indicating that state of mind are admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule; however, if these statements also contain assertions of fact that are otherwise inadmissible hearsay, the opposing party is entitled to a clear limiting instruction directing the jury to consider the statements only as evidence of the declarant's state of mind.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Adkins, was married.
- Adkins alleged that the defendant, Brett, engaged in acts of adultery with his wife.
- Adkins' wife had conversations with him where she stated she had gone automobile riding with Brett, dined with him, and received flowers from him.
- In these conversations, the wife also stated that Brett was able to give her a good time while Adkins was not.
- The wife declared her intention to continue accepting Brett's attentions and told Adkins that he was distasteful to her.
- A male companion of Brett's testified that Brett made statements indicating he was the aggressor in his first sexual encounter with Adkins' wife.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Adkins, sued the defendant, Brett, in a trial court for damages for alienation of his wife's affections.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment upon the jury's verdict.
- The defendant, Brett, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by admitting testimony of a spouse's out-of-court declarations that are admissible for the limited purpose of showing their state of mind, but failing to provide a clear and direct instruction limiting the jury's consideration of that testimony to that specific purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Olney, J.
Yes, the trial court committed reversible error. While the wife's declarations were admissible under the 'state of mind' exception to the hearsay rule to show her feelings, they were inadmissible hearsay to prove the facts she narrated (e.g., that Brett actually took her to dinner). When evidence is admissible for one purpose but inadmissible and prejudicial for another, the opposing party is entitled to a direct, positive, and unqualified limiting instruction. The trial judge's instruction was ambiguous, telling the jury they were the 'sole judges of the value and effect of the evidence,' which failed to prevent them from misusing the declarations as proof of the defendant's alleged acts. This failure to properly instruct the jury was a prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the 'state of mind' exception to the hearsay rule in the context of alienation of affection torts. Its primary significance lies in its emphasis on the procedural safeguard of the limiting instruction. The court establishes that when facing 'dual-use' evidence—competent for one purpose, incompetent and prejudicial for another—a trial judge must clearly and directly cabin the jury's use of the evidence to its permissible purpose. This holding underscores the balance between admitting relevant evidence and protecting a party from the unfair prejudice of inadmissible hearsay.
Unlock the full brief for Adkins v. Brett