We've discussed hearsay exceptions with respect to the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. One exception that practitioners should keep in mind is evidence of a declarant's out-of-court assertion of his or her then existing state of mind or emotional feeling. Specifically, in Commonwealth v. Keillen, sexual banter was proper state of mind evidence inconsistent with having just been sexually assaulted. In this particular case, it is relevant to how a person's present sense banter or emotions would lead to a conclusion contrary to the charges. Another case of importance is Commonwealth v. Ilgenfitz from 1976. In this case, error was involved and excluding a victim statement that she intended to see a Dr. because she fell injuring her head. This impacted the Commonwealth's evidence that if the deceased had suffered blows other than from defendant, she would've sought medical assistance.
For cases where the exception was held not to apply, we look towards Commonwealth v. Laich. In this case, the out-of-court statement was admitted into evidence, but was found to be an error as the admission of the victim statement that if defendant ever caught her with another man he would kill them both. The defense was that the crimes were committed in heat of passion and the victim's state of mind regarding her relationship with defendant was a irrelevant. Another case is Commonwealth v. Hudson. In this particular case, excluding the defendant's statement to a witness that police beat the confession out of him was improper as that statement was made three weeks after the alleged beating.