How have the courts interpreted evidence in a civil case concerning statements made by two police officers?

The statements at issue were not offered for their truth or even to prove that someone actually made the statements, but rather to show the officers' state of mind and explain their actions. Thus, the court's admonitions to the jury at the time of the testimony were correct insofar as they went. At the close of evidence, the jury was further instructed "During the trial, certain evidence was admitted for a limited purpose. You may consider that evidence only for that purpose and no other." (Italics added.) In toto, then, the jury was correctly admonished they were to consider the officers' testimony only for the purpose of explaining their actions and state of mind. We presume the jury followed the court's instructions. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717.)