In what circumstances will a defendant be found admissible under the hearsay rule under the state of mind exception to hearsay?

[782 P.2d 642] In a third decision, we held admissible, under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule (Evid.Code, 1250), ⁸ a defendant's statement "that he would not hesitate to eliminate witnesses if he committed a crime." (People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 634-638, 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189.) Although we rejected an argument that the statement was barred by Evidence Code section 1101, we cautioned that "the content of and circumstances in which such statements are made must be carefully examined both in determining whether the statements fall within the state-of-mind exception, as circumstantial evidence that defendant acted in accordance with his stated intent, and in assessing whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs that potential prejudicial effect." (46 Cal.3d at p. 636, 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189.) We concluded that evidence of a generic threat is admissible to prove the declarant's state of mind "unless the circumstances in which the statements were made, the lapse of time, or other evidence suggests that the state of mind [49 Cal.3d 1015] was transitory and no longer existed at the time of the charged offense." (Id. at p. 637, 250 Cal.Rptr. 659, 758 P.2d 1189.)