R v Starr, 2000 SCC 40 (Iacobucci):

[168] The Crown argued that the “state of mind” or “present intentions” exception to the hearsay rule applied to render Cook’s statement to Giesbrecht admissible. This exception was most recently discussed in detail by this Court in Smith, supra, where it was recognized that an “exception to the hearsay rule arises when the declarant’s statement is adduced in order to demonstrate the intentions, or state of mind, of the declarant at the time when the statement was made” (p. 925). Wigmore has argued that the present intentions exception also includes a requirement that a statement “be of a present existing state of mind, and must appear to have been made in a natural manner and not under circumstances of suspicion”: Wigmore on Evidence, vol. 6 (Chadbourn rev. 1976), at para. 1725, p. 129 (emphasis in original). L’Heureux-Dubé J., at para. 63 of her reasons, denies that Wigmore’s suggestion has ever been adopted in our jurisprudence. As I will discuss below, regardless of whether the present intentions requirement ever had such a requirement, the principled approach demands that it must have it now. I will therefore examine the admissibility of Cook’s statement under the present intentions exception in light of that understanding.

[169] In Smith, Lamer C.J. explained that the exception as it has developed in Canada permits the admission into evidence of statements of intent or of other mental states for the truth of their contents and also, in the case of statements of intention in particular, to support an inference that the declarant followed through on the intended course of action, provided it is reasonable on the evidence for the trier of fact to infer that the declarant did so. At the same time, there are certain inferences that may not permissibly be drawn from hearsay evidence of the out-of-court declarant’s intentions. On this point, Lamer C.J. cited with approval (at p. 927) from the judgment of Doherty J. in P. (R.), supra, at pp. 343-44, where the case law was summarized as follows:

The evidence is not, however, admissible to show the state of mind of persons other than the deceased (unless they were aware of the statements), or to show that persons other than the deceased acted in accordance with the deceased’s stated intentions, save perhaps cases where the act was a joint one involving the deceased and another person. The evidence is also not admissible to establish that past acts or events referred to in the utterances occurred.

[170] As noted by J. Sopinka, S. N. Lederman and A. W. Bryant, in The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd ed. 1999), at para. 6.236, in Smith the Court adopted “the proposition that the admissibility of statements of intention were to be limited to the declarant’s state of mind and could not be used to prove the act or intention of any other person”. It is important to emphasize that even in “cases where the act was a joint one involving the deceased and another person”, the hearsay is not generally admissible to show the intentions of a third party. I draw this conclusion for two reasons.

[171] First, I can find no support in Canadian jurisprudence for the proposition that statements of intention are admissible against someone other than the declarant, apart from the one comment by Doherty J. noted above. Any other interpretation focusses on the exception and ignores the rule. In support of the proposition quoted above, Doherty J. cited three U.S. cases. All three had held that statements about joint acts were only admissible to prove the state of mind of the declarant: see Giles v. United States, 432 A.2d 739 (D.C. App. 1981), at pp. 745-46; United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758 (D.C. Cir. 1973); People v. Madson, 638 P.2d 18 (Colo. 1981). See also Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96 (1933), at pp. 105-6; D. Kiesel, “One Person’s Thoughts, Another Person’s Acts: How the Federal Circuit Courts Interpret the Hillmon Doctrine” (1984), 33 Cath. U. L. Rev. 699, at pp. 738-39; and J. M. Maguire, “The Hillmon Case — Thirty-Three Years After” (1925), 38 Harv. L. Rev. 709, at p. 721.

[172] Second, there are very good reasons behind the rule against allowing statements of present intention to be used to prove the state of mind of someone other than the declarant. As noted above, the central concern with hearsay is the inability of the trier of fact to test the reliability of the declarant’s assertion. When the statement is tendered to prove the intentions of a third party, this danger is multiplied. If a declarant makes a statement about the intentions of a third party, there are three possible bases for this statement: first, it could be based on a prior conversation with the accused; second, it could be based on a prior conversation with a fourth party, who indicated the third party’s intentions to the declarant; or third, it could be based on pure speculation on the part of the declarant. Under the first scenario, the statement is double hearsay. Since each level of double hearsay must fall within an exception, or be admissible under the principled approach, the mere fact that the declarant is making a statement of present intention is insufficient to render it admissible. The second level of hearsay must also be admissible.

[173] The other two scenarios also clearly require exclusion. If the statement about joint acts is based on a conversation with a fourth party, then the statement is triple hearsay, or worse. If, on the other hand, it is based on pure speculation, then it clearly is unreliable and does not fit within the rationale underlying the present intentions exception.

[174] In conclusion then, a statement of intention cannot be admitted to prove the intentions of someone other than the declarant, unless a hearsay exception can be established for each level of hearsay. One way to establish this would obviously be the co-conspirator exception: see R. v. Carter, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 938; Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, supra, at pp. 303-7. This is no doubt what Doherty J. was referring to in P. (R.), supra, when he spoke of “cases where the act was a joint one involving the deceased and another person” (p. 344). Barring the applicability of this or some other exception to each level of hearsay involved, statements of joint intention are only admissible to prove the declarant’s intentions.