be distilled from the better reasoned decisions is that a victim’s extra-judicial declarations of fear of the defendant are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule with a limiting instruction only if there is a manifest need for such evidence, i.e., if it is relevant to a material issue in the case. Where there is a substantial likelihood of prejudice to the defendant’s case in the admission of such testimony, it is inadmissible if it bears only a remote or artificial relationship to the legal or factual issues raised in the case. Even where there is substantial relevance, the additional factual matters in the statement may simply be too explosive to be contained by the limiting instruction, in which case exclusion of the testimony is also necessi r. 420 (1963) (<HOLDING>); State v. Boliek, Mo.Supr., 706 S.W.2d 847
holding admissible a letter which a woman had purportedly written to a judge 2 days before her death stating that her husband had threatened her and she feared him where the defendant husband claimed she had threatened him holding that the applicant was entitled to asylum based on her fear that her daughter will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation because her fear of  being forced to witness the pain and suffering of her daughter is wellfounded holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding admissible a deceased wifes statements of fear of her husband and threats made by him where he claimed that he was attempting to disarm her recognizing that a client can make selfserving statements to her attorney and paint a picture of the marital relationship that is inaccurate and biased in considering whether statements made to her attorney are admissible in a prosecution of husband for murdering his exwife