Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement by a declarant setting forth the declarant's perception of the declarant's internal state (including mental states, bodily conditions, feelings, motives, designs, and intentions) at the time the declarant makes the statement.

Cf. United States v. Neely, 980 F.2d 1074, 1082-1083 (7th Cir. 1992) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's reply letter [which he wrote more than two weeks after he received Lake's letter] as a state-of-mind....To fall within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, it must be shown that declarant had no chance to reflect, fabricate, or misrepresent his thoughts.

Cf. Forn v. Hornung, 343 F.3d 990, 995-999 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's denial of the habeas corpus petition because even though the court erroneously admitted accomplice's November 13 statement which did....A statement that exposes a declarant (other than the defendant) to criminal liability is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against interest to exculpate a criminal defendant only if corroborating circumstances show that the statement is trustworthy.

Fed. R. Evid. 413 ("In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.").Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.