One day last year, while on a cross country trip, Carl spotted Bob along the side of the highway. Bob was holding a sign indicating that he was seeking a ride west. Bob looked harmless, so Carl decided to offer him a ride. Shortly after Bob joined Carl, the two began talking. It soon became apparent to each man that they were polar opposites on many issues, and their conversation quickly became heated. A few minutes after the two men began arguing about global warming, Carl had to pull over because of a flat tire. Carl asked Bob to help him change the tire. Bob replied, "There is no help for imbeciles like you," and he stormed off down the road. After changing the tire, Carl proceeded down the highway. Upon viewing Bob walking on the shoulder, Carl swerved and struck Bob with the right front end of his vehicle and fled the scene. A police officer soon spotted Bob on the side of the road. Bob was injured, but not seriously. He was able to give the officer a description of Carl and his car, and Carl was quickly located and returned to the scene. Carl admitted to the officer that he had picked up Bob, that they had an argument, and that he was very angry with Bob. A few weeks later Bob filed a civil tort battery action against Carl in federal district court, based on diversity jurisdiction.

At trial: 1. Bob seeks to call the police officer to testify as to the statement that Carl made to the police and contends that the statement by Carl is not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2. Bob further contends that even if the statement is hearsay, it is admissible because it is a: (a) Statement of state of mind; or (b) Declaration against interest. How should the court rule on each of the matters raised? Support your answer