Main/Today's Supreme Court Opinion - Statements Against Penal Interest

The Supreme Court reiterated today that the credibility of witnesses offering hearsay statements should not be taken into account when evaluating "trustworthiness" under the hearsay exceptions. Rather, the correct inquiry is into the trustworthiness ''of the statement''. Further, the court held that federal due process requires the trial court to admit hearsay statements against penal interest even when the declarant testifies.

The case involves consolidated appeals of two co-defendants convicted of murdering a woman during a robbery. The defendants attempted to admit hearsay statements of a person who confessed to the murder to four different people on four separate occasions. One defendant argued that the statements against penal interest exception applied, while the other argued the residual hearsay exception applied. The trial court refused to admit the statements, reasoning that the witnesses were completely incredible and even if they were, the penal interest exception only applies when the declarant is unavailable.

The Court of Appeals below and the Supreme Court disagreed on the question of trustworthiness, since the trial court had made a credibility determination that should be left for the jury. Rather, there were substantial facts making the statements trustworthy:

# The declarant confessed to four people on four different occasions
# All the statements were identical at their core
# The statements were against the declarant's interest
# The declarant was under no pressure to confess
# The statements were made shortly after the murder and were spontaneous
# The statements contained corroborating details about the crime

Citing [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=%22Chambers+v.+Mississippi%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38&case=10804189023260429532&scilh=0 ''Chambers v. Mississippi''], 410 US 284 (1973), the court further held that federal due process requires the admission of the statements at issue, despite the fact that they do not strictly fit under the statement against penal interest hearsay exception in the OEC.

For the defendant who argued that the residual hearsay exception applied, the court disagreed, reaffirming that statements that fit under an exception but do not meet its requirements cannot be admitted through the residual exception instead. However, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the error here was plain and reversed both judgments. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S058406.pdf ''State v. Cazares-Mendez/Reyes-Sanchez'']
{{wl-publish: 2011-07-07 21:00:00 -0700 | jaaron }}