Evidence of a third party's state of mind may be admissible as circumstantial evidence probative of an accused's state of mind where there is evidence of communication between the third party and the accused, and the third party's state of mind permits an inference as to the tenor of that communication. A trial judge's duty in directing the jury on such evidence is to explain the limited relevance of the evidence, not to canvass all possible impermissible uses.
The full text is available to signed-in members.