R v Griffin, 2009 SCC 28 (Charron):

[58] Applying Smith and Starr to the facts of the present case, there is no doubt that Poirier’s statement cannot be admitted as proof of Griffin’s intentions, because we do not know the basis on which Poirier came to believe that if he was harmed, Griffin would be responsible. Hence, Poirier’s statement is not admissible to prove a third party’s intentions, unless the “second level of hearsay” is also admissible. The same principle applies to statements of present state of mind. If, for example, Poirier had said to Williams that his friend Besso was afraid of Griffin, the statement could not be admitted to prove that Besso in fact feared Griffin. That the deceased’s hearsay statement about his own state of mind or intention to follow a particular course of action cannot constitute proof of another person’s state of mind or intentions only makes good sense.

[59] In the case before us, however, the statement at issue was not admitted to prove the state of mind or intentions of a third party. No one questioned at trial, or in the court below, that the inference that Poirier feared Griffin could be drawn from the former’s statement to Williams. The statement was tendered and admitted for the truth of the fact that Poirier himself feared Griffin, a purpose that does not exceed the scope of the “state of mind” exception to the hearsay rule. As this Court stated in Starr, declarations of present state of mind are admissible under the traditional exception to the hearsay rule where the declarant’s state of mind is relevant and the statement is made in a natural manner and not under circumstances of suspicion (para. 168). In the present case, there was no argument that the statement was made under circumstances of suspicion. Poirier’s fear of Griffin was a relevant fact – it was relevant to motive and, in turn to the issue of identification. Although a declarant’s hearsay statement cannot constitute proof of a third party’s state of mind, this does not mean that the declarant’s state of mind can have no bearing on other issues in the case. I will explain.

[60] As stated earlier, the sole issue at trial was the identity of Poirier’s killer. Although Poirier’s state of mind may have no direct bearing on the resolution of the identity of his murderer, it is well established that a deceased’s mental state may be relevant to the question of an accused’s motive. As Doherty J. explained in the oft-approved judgment in P.(R.), at p. 339:

… the deceased’s mental state may bear no direct relevance to the ultimate issue of identification but it will none the less be relevant to that issue if it is relevant to another fact (e.g., motive) which is directly relevant to the ultimate issue of identification.
In turn, that evidence of motive is relevant and admissible particularly where, on the issues of identity and intention, the evidence is purely circumstantial, is equally well established at law: Lewis v. The Queen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 821, at pp. 834-38.

[61] The state of the relationship between a deceased and an accused in the time period leading up to the former’s murder has been recognized as probative of the issue of motive. For example, in R. v. Assoun, 2006 NSCA 47, 244 N.S.R. (2d) 96, identity was the crucial issue at trial. The trial judge admitted statements made by the deceased expressing fear of the accused on the basis that such statements were probative of the issues of “malice, motive, [and] state of mind” (para. 104) which in turn were relevant to identity. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal agreed (at para. 133):

[The deceased’s] state of mind and [the accused’s] state of mind are probative of the relationship between them at the time of [the deceased’s] murder. Therefore, they are probative of motive, which is relevant to identity.
[62] The conclusion in Assoun echoes that of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Foreman (2002), 6 C.R. (6th) 201, where the court considered the relationship between a deceased’s state of mind and the issue of motive. Upholding the trial judge’s admission of statements made by the deceased shortly before her death in which she expressed fear of the accused, the court stated as follows (at para. 30):

Motive refers to an accused’s state of mind. … [T]he deceased’s state of mind was one link in a chain of reasoning which could lead to a finding that the [accused] had a motive to kill [the deceased]. In that way, evidence of [the deceased’s] state of mind had an indirect connection to the appellant’s state of mind.
[63] The connection between a deceased’s state of mind and that of an accused arises by virtue of a pre-existing relationship between the two; if a deceased and accused are unknown to one another, this course of logic can find no application. That the relationship between a deceased and an accused was acrimonious or that the two had engaged in a dispute in the period leading up to a murder are highly relevant to the issue of motive because such information may afford evidence of the accused’s animus or intention to act against the victim: R. v. Pasqualino, 2008 ONCA 554, 233 C.C.C. (3d) 319, at para. 31. See also R. v. Lemky (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 71, aff’d [1996] 1 S.C.R. 757. This is not to say that a deceased’s state of mind alone is capable of proving motive. Insofar as it affords evidence of the nature of the relationship between a deceased and an accused, however, a deceased’s state of mind is one piece of evidence that may be relevant to the issue of motive.

[64] In the instant appeal, Poirier’s fearful state of mind is probative of the nature of the relationship between he and Griffin in the time period immediately preceding the murder. The two were known to one another prior to the murder and had engaged in drug-related transactions resulting in a sizeable debt owed to Griffin by Poirier. Poirier sensed that Griffin’s animus towards him was increasing throughout January 2003 and it is apparent that he acted accordingly: Poirier refused to meet with Griffin, he went into hiding at the Clarion Hotel, and, by way of the statement now at issue before this Court, he told his girlfriend that he believed that Griffin intended him harm. All of these facts make it more likely that Griffin had the motive ascribed to him by the Crown than would otherwise be the case. Indeed, quite apart from this statement, the evidence that Griffin had a motive to harm Poirier was overwhelming.

[65] In addition to its broad relevance as one piece of a large puzzle of circumstantial evidence going to proof of motive, Poirier’s state of mind took on an elevated importance in light of the defence argument advanced in this case. In admitting the impugned statement, the trial judge correctly observed that Poirier’s particularized fear of Griffin was evidence that tended to rebut the defence proposition that someone other than Griffin might have had a motive to kill Poirier in January 2003. While Poirier’s fear of Griffin was not conclusive on this issue, the evidence was highly relevant to the question of identity. That Poirier was driven into hiding and was fearful for his safety in the weeks preceding his death because of his fear of Griffin, and not because of his fear of someone else as suggested by the defence, could be properly considered as one piece of circumstantial evidence refuting the defence theory that someone other than Griffin may have killed Poirier.

[66] Thus, the trial judge correctly appreciated that the deceased’s mental state was highly probative of the issue of motive and that it took on additional probative value in that it tended to rebut the specific defence proposition that someone other than Griffin may have had a motive to kill Poirier in January 2003. Properly acknowledging the need for an appropriate limiting instruction, the trial judge found that the statement’s probative value outweighed its possible prejudicial effect and admitted the statement into evidence. The trial judge’s decision accorded with the applicable legal principles, and as such, it is entitled to deference: R. v. Blackman, 2008 SCC 37, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 298, at para. 36; and R. v. Couture, 2007 SCC 28, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 517, at para. 81. I see no reason to disturb the trial judge’s ruling on admissibility.