Shepard v. United States
290 U.S. 96 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a statement to be admitted under the dying declaration hearsay exception, the declarant must possess a "settled hopeless expectation" of imminent death. Furthermore, the state-of-mind exception cannot be used to admit a statement of memory charging another with a past criminal act, as its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
Facts:
- Charles A. Shepard, a major in the U.S. Army medical corps, was in a romantic relationship with another woman and wished to marry her.
- On May 20, 1929, Shepard's wife, Zenana Shepard, fell into a state of collapse, experiencing delirium and pain.
- Two days later, on May 22, Mrs. Shepard's condition had improved and her mind had cleared. She asked her nurse, Clara Brown, to retrieve a bottle of whisky from her husband's room.
- Upon seeing the bottle, Mrs. Shepard stated it was the liquor she had consumed just before collapsing and noted its strange smell and taste.
- She asked the nurse if enough liquor remained for a poison test.
- Mrs. Shepard then declared to the nurse, "Dr. Shepard has poisoned me."
- At the time of this statement, Mrs. Shepard's physicians did not consider her to be in danger of death and she appeared to be recovering.
- Approximately a week later, Mrs. Shepard suffered a relapse and ultimately died on June 15 from bichloride of mercury poisoning.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Charles A. Shepard for murder in the U.S. District Court.
- During the trial, the court admitted into evidence, over defense objection, the victim's statement to her nurse, "Dr. Shepard has poisoned me," on the grounds that it qualified as a dying declaration.
- A jury found Shepard guilty of murder but added the words "without capital punishment" to their verdict.
- The trial court sentenced Shepard to life imprisonment.
- Shepard, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, with one judge dissenting.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Shepard's petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 the hearsay exception for dying declarations or the exception for statements showing state of mind permit the admission of a declarant's statement, made while ill but not in the shadow of impending death, that accuses another person of a past criminal act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cardozo
No. The statement is inadmissible under either the dying declaration or the state-of-mind hearsay exception. To qualify as a dying declaration, the statement must be made by a declarant who has abandoned all hope of recovery and is conscious of impending death, a condition not met here. The state-of-mind exception does not apply because the statement was one of memory looking backward to a past event, and its powerful accusatory nature would create extreme prejudice for the jury, far outweighing any subtle inference about the declarant's will to live. The court reasoned that Mrs. Shepard's statement did not meet the dying declaration standard because evidence showed her condition was improving, her doctors were not alarmed, and she later expressed hope for recovery by asking a physician, "You will get me well, won’t you?" The court distinguished fear or a belief of death from the required "settled hopeless expectation." Regarding the state-of-mind exception, the court held that admitting declarations of memory about another's past actions would effectively destroy the hearsay rule. While the defense introduced evidence of Mrs. Shepard's suicidal thoughts, the government could only rebut this with evidence of her will to live, not with a hearsay accusation of murder. The court famously stated, "The reverberating clang of those accusatory words would drown all weaker sounds," concluding that a jury could not perform the subtle mental task of considering the statement for her state of mind while ignoring it as evidence of the husband's guilt.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in evidence law that strictly defines the requirements for the dying declaration exception and clarifies the limits of the state-of-mind exception. It establishes that the declarant's mental state for a dying declaration must be an objective certainty of impending doom, not mere fear. More significantly, the ruling prevents the state-of-mind exception from becoming a loophole that would swallow the rule against hearsay. By distinguishing forward-looking declarations of intent (admissible under Hillmon) from backward-looking declarations of memory (inadmissible hearsay), Shepard ensures that accusatory statements about past events cannot be introduced under the guise of proving a declarant's mental state, thus protecting defendants from convictions based on unreliable and highly prejudicial out-of-court statements.
Unlock the full brief for Shepard v. United States