BSA Section 12 — Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling

Summary

Facts that show a person's state of mind — such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will, or goodwill towards a particular person — are relevant in a case when that state of mind is itself an issue or is relevant to the case. Similarly, facts that show a person's physical condition or bodily feeling are relevant when that condition or feeling is in issue or relevant.

Explanation 1 clarifies that a fact showing a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists specifically in relation to the particular matter in question, not as a general tendency.

Explanation 2 states that when a person accused of an offence is being tried, and the previous commission of an offence by that accused person is relevant under this section, then the previous conviction of that person is also a relevant fact.

Illustration (a): If A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing they were stolen, and it is proved that A was in possession of one stolen article, the fact that A was also in possession of many other stolen articles at the same time is relevant because it tends to show that A knew all the articles in his possession were stolen.

Illustration (b): If A is accused of fraudulently delivering counterfeit currency to another person, knowing it was counterfeit at the time of delivery, the fact that A possessed other counterfeit currency at that time is relevant. Also, the fact that A had previously been convicted of delivering counterfeit currency as genuine, knowing it was counterfeit, is relevant.

Illustration (c): If A sues B for damage done by B's dog, which B knew to be ferocious, the facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and that they had complained to B about it, are relevant.

Illustration (d): When the question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the payee's name was fictitious, the fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee, if the payee had been a real person, is relevant as showing that A knew the payee was fictitious.

Illustration (e): If A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm B's reputation, previous publications by A about B that show ill-will towards B are relevant as proving A's intention to harm B's reputation in the particular publication. The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter as he heard it, are relevant as showing that A did not intend to harm B's reputation.

Illustration (f): If A is sued by B for fraudulently representing that C was solvent, causing B to trust C and suffer loss, the fact that at the time of the representation C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and persons dealing with him is relevant as showing that A made the representation in good faith.

Illustration (g): If A is sued by B for the price of work done on A's house by the order of C, a contractor, and A's defence is that B's contract was with C, the fact that A paid C for the work is relevant as proving that A in good faith handed over the management of the work to C, so that C could contract with B on C's own account and not as A's agent.

Illustration (h): If A is accused of dishonestly misappropriating property he found, and the question is whether he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found, the fact that public notice of the loss had been given in the place where A was is relevant as showing that A did not in good faith believe the owner could not be found. The fact that A knew or had reason to believe that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who wished to set up a false claim, is relevant as showing that A's knowledge of the notice did not disprove his good faith.

Illustration (i): If A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him, the fact that A had previously shot at B may be proved to show A's intent.

Illustration (j): If A is charged with sending threatening letters to B, threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved as showing the intention of the letters in question.

Illustration (k): When the question is whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife, expressions of their feelings towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.

Illustration (l): When the question is whether A's death was caused by poison, statements made by A during his illness about his symptoms are relevant facts.

Illustration (m): When the question is what was the state of A's health at the time an assurance on his life was effected, statements made by A about his health at or near that time are relevant facts.

Illustration (n): If A sues B for negligence in providing a car for hire that was not reasonably fit for use, causing A injury, the fact that B's attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular car is relevant. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the cars he let to hire is irrelevant.

Illustration (o): If A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead, the fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as showing his intention to shoot B. The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant.

Illustration (p): If A is tried for a crime, the fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant. The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.

Official Text

Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or goodwill towards any particular person, or showing the existence of any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant.

Explanation 1.—A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.

Explanation 2.—But where, upon the trial of a person accused of an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person shall also be a relevant fact.

Illustrations.

(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen article. The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be stolen.

(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit currency which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a number of other pieces of counterfeit currency is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit currency knowing it to be counterfeit is relevant.

(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B's, which B knew to be ferocious. The fact that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that they had made complaints to B, are relevant.

(d) The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious. The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the payee had been a real person, is relevant, as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.

(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B. The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-will on the part of A towards B is relevant, as proving A's intention to harm B's reputation by the particular publication in question. The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard it, are relevant, as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.

(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss. The fact that, at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith.

(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor. A's defence is that B's contract was with C. The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the management of the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C's own account, and not as agent for A.

(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found. The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found. The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A's good faith.

(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him. In order to show A's intent, the fact of A's having previously shot at B may be proved.

(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved, as showing the intention of the letters.

(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B, his wife. Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.

(l) The question is, whether A's death was caused by poison. Statements made by A during his illness as to his symptoms are relevant facts.

(m) The question is, what was the state of A's health at the time when an assurance on his life was effected. Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the time in question are relevant facts.

(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a car for hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured. The fact that B's attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular car is relevant. The fact that B was habitually negligent about the cars which he let to hire is irrelevant.

(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him dead. The fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as showing his intention to shoot B. The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant.

(p) A is tried for a crime. The fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant. The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §14 — Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling