United States v. Pheaster

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976 · Evidence

544 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1976)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsaystate of minddeclarant intentHillmonRule 26co-conspirator statementsMiranda

Facts

Larry Adell disappeared after leaving friends at a Palm Springs restaurant parking lot, stating he was going to meet Angelo to receive free marijuana. At trial, two of Larry's friends testified to Larry's statements that he intended to meet Angelo that evening, and one identified Inciso as the Angelo Larry had previously met. The government offered the statements under the state-of-mind exception, and Inciso objected that they were inadmissible hearsay, especially insofar as they were used to suggest that Larry in fact met Inciso. Other challenged evidence included co-conspirator statements by Pheaster to Mrs. Mapes, voice identification testimony, Miranda-based statements, and physical evidence from searches.

Issue

Whether Larry Adell's out-of-court statements of intent to meet Angelo were admissible under the state-of-mind exception to prove that Larry carried out that intention and met Inciso. The case also addressed whether related evidentiary and constitutional rulings, including co-conspirator hearsay, Miranda waiver, identification procedures, and searches, were proper.

Rule

Under the Hillmon doctrine, when the performance of a particular act by a person is in issue, that person's statement of then-existing intention to perform the act is admissible under the state-of-mind exception, and the trier of fact may infer that the person acted in accordance with that intention. The Ninth Circuit recognized that this doctrine may extend to a declarant's statement of intent to do something with another person, despite theoretical objections, because prevailing authority allowed such use. For suggestive identifications, the central question is whether under the totality of the circumstances the identification was reliable even though the procedure was suggestive. A suspect may also waive Miranda rights, including after requesting counsel, if the government carries its heavy burden of showing a knowing and intelligent waiver under the circumstances.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Kim told her roommate, "I'm going to meet Devin at the river trail at 8 tonight to pick up the concert tickets he promised me." Nora disappeared that evening. At Devin's trial for abducting Nora, the prosecution offers the roommate's testimony about Nora's statement.

Is the statement most likely admissible to support an inference that Nora went to the river trail and met Devin?

Explanation. Under the Hillmon doctrine as recognized by the majority, a declarant's statement of then-existing intention to do an act is admissible under the state-of-mind exception to support an inference that the declarant carried out that intention. The majority also accepted prevailing authority allowing the inference even where the intended act involved meeting or acting with another person.