As we discussed hearsay exceptions previously, we must keep in mind that statements of memory and belief are specifically excluded as an exception. In fact, almost any statement used to describe events that he speaker has experienced in the past can be characterized as a memory, which is a presently existing state of mind when it is conveyed. You can't have someone say, "He later recalled that he was drunk" in a Chester County DUI matter. This would be specifically objected to by your Chester County DUI lawyer to make sure that it is kept out.
If such statements were made admissible under 803 of the Rules of Evidence, to prove the facts remembered, parties could offer hearsay to establish almost any past fact, a result that would mark a virtual destruction of the hearsay rule. The exclusion of statements of memory or belief grew out of the opinion of the justices on the Supreme Court. The justices opinion was in Shepard V. United States. In this case, the Supreme Court refused to admit under the state of mind exception a statement by defendant's wife that "Dr. Shepard has poisoned me". The court said that the testimony now questioned faced backward and not forward. What is even more important, it spoke to a past act and even more than that, to an act by someone not the speaker.