Shepard v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1933 · Evidence
290 U.S. 96 (1933)
Updated
Evidencedying declarationsstate of mind limitshearsaydying declarationimpending deathsettled hopeless expectationstate of mind

Facts

The Government introduced testimony from the wife's nurse that, while ill in bed, the wife identified a bottle of whiskey she had drunk before collapsing, said its smell and taste were strange, asked whether enough remained to test for poison, and added, "Dr. Shepard has poisoned me." The statement was first struck, then reintroduced after the nurse testified that the wife had said she was not going to get well and was going to die. At the time of the statement, however, her condition had apparently improved, her speech was rational, her physicians did not think she was dangerously ill, and poison had not yet been diagnosed. The defense had also introduced earlier statements by the wife suggesting weariness of life and possible suicidal intent.

Issue

Was the wife's accusation against her husband admissible either as a dying declaration or, alternatively, as evidence of her state of mind to rebut the defense suggestion of suicide? If not, did its admission require reversal?

Rule

To qualify as a dying declaration, the declarant must speak without hope of recovery and in the shadow of impending death; fear or belief that death may come is not enough, and the declarant's hopeless expectation must be shown by evidence rather than conjecture. Declarations of state of mind may be admitted to show the declarant's then-existing feelings or intent, but not to prove a past act, especially an act committed by someone other than the declarant, where the hearsay use would overwhelm any limited mental-state relevance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a homicide trial in New Mexico, the prosecution offers a statement made by Lena Ortiz from her hospital bed in Albuquerque: “Mason Reed switched my pills.” Earlier that day Lena told a nurse, “I think I might die,” but her doctors testified she was improving, had not diagnosed a fatal condition, and expected recovery.

Is Lena’s statement most likely admissible as a dying declaration?

Explanation. A dying declaration requires that the declarant speak without hope of recovery and under a settled, hopeless expectation that death is near at hand. A statement such as “I think I might die,” especially when doctors believe the patient is improving and expect recovery, does not establish the required state of mind. The majority rule rejects mere fear or belief as insufficient.