9. The witness's testimony is

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) define hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the current trial or hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). When an out-of-court statement is introduced for any purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, there is no need to cross-examine the declarant, so the statement is not hearsay. One example of this includes statements offered to show the effect on the listener, such as knowledge. Another example is when statements are offered as circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state of mind. Statements that reflect directly (as opposed to circumstantially) on the declarant's state of mind are hearsay but are admissible under the FRE 803(3) exception. Many courts have used this «state of mind exception» to admit all declarations that reflect on the declarant's state of mind without regard to the fact that they could simply be admitted as non-hearsay. As a practical matter, the distinction makes little difference as the admissibility is the same.

A is correct. The witness's testimony regarding the victim's statement to him that she loved the defendant and could never hurt him is admissible as a hearsay exception: a statement of then-existing mental or emotional condition. The purpose of introducing this statement is to reflect directly on the victim's state of mind — that she could not hurt him, thus supporting the contention that she was less likely to have subsequently attempted to shoot the defendant, as he claimed.

B is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The victim's unavailability is irrelevant to the admissibility of the statement. The testimony is admissible under the then-existing mental or emotional state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as explained above.

C is incorrect. It may be true that the statement is considered hearsay because it is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of its contents — that the victim could never hurt the defendant. However, it nevertheless is admissible as a then-existing state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as previously stated.

D is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the issues. The victim's character, as far as the self-defense claim goes, is at issue given that the defendant has raised a self-defense claim and is arguing that the victim was the initial aggressor. Nevertheless, the statement goes to the victim's then-existing state of mind and not to her general character for violence or non-violence.