Adkins v. Brett - 184 Cal. 252, 193 P. 251 (1920)

Rule:

Opponents to evidence that is competent for one purpose but incompetent for another are entitled to a direct, positive, and unqualified instruction that the jury must not consider the evidence as proof of the matters narrated, to prove which the evidence was wholly incompetent.

Facts:

Plaintiff brought an alienation of affection suit against defendant after plaintiff's wife asked for a separation because of her feelings for defendant. At trial, evidence of plaintiff and his wife's conversations were admitted to show her mental state. Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. According to the defendant, the evidence admitted against him was hearsay. 

Issue:

1. Was the evidence admitted against the defendant inadmissible for being hearsay? 
2. Under the circumstances, was the defendant entitled to a new trial? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and ordered a new trial. The court held that the conversations, offered as proof of the wife's mental state, were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The fact that the content of the conversations would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted did not render them inadmissible. However, because the conversations could be construed by the jury in this way, defendant was entitled to protection in the form of jury instructions. Here, the judge failed to properly instruct the jury; therefore, the judgment was reversed.