 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Prasertphong9/2/2003
Rule 106, excluded portions of a statement may be introduced if necessary "to explain the admitted portion, place the admitted portion in context, avoid misleading the trier-of-fact, and insure a fair and impartial understanding of the [statement]." State v. Dunlap, 187 Ariz. 441, 454-55, 930 P.2d 518, 532-33 (App. 1996). After reviewing Huerstel's statement, we agree with the trial court that it would have been misleading to the jury to present Huerstel's statement as Prasertphong suggested. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting Huerstel's entire statement under Rule 106.
Nevertheless, even though a statement is admissible under a hearsay exception, admission must also satisfy the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Bass, 198 Ariz. 571, 580, 35, 12 P.3d 796, 805 (2000). Prasertphong argues that admission of the entire statement under Rules 804(b)(3) and 106 violated his Confrontation Clause rights. We disagree because Huerstel's statements, when viewed in their entirety, were generally self-inculpatory, and thus bore sufficient indicia of reliability.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that " n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." However, this right of confrontation "is not absolute and must sometimes give way to considerations of public policy." State v. Nieto, 186 Ariz. 449, 454, 924 P.2d 453, 458 (App. 1996) (citing State v. Ruelas, 174 Ariz. 37, 39-40, 846 P.2d 850, 852-53 (App. 1992)). "Public policy overrides the onfrontation lause when the declarant is unavailable and his statement bears adequate 'indicia of reliability.'" Id. Reliability can be inferred when the statement falls within a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception or the statement "is supported by a 'showing of particularized guarantees of trust-worthiness.'" Id. (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980)).
The United States Supreme Court declared in Lilly that "accomplices' confessions that inculpate a criminal defendant are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule." 527 U.S. at 134. This is so because of the "basic understanding that when one person accuses another of a crime under circumstances in which the declarant stands to gain by inculpating another, the accusation is presumptively suspect and must be subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination." Id. at 132 (quoting Lee v. Illinois , 476 U.S. 530, 541 (1986)). However, accomplice statements that are against the declarant's penal interest are admissible "when the circumstances surrounding the statements 'provid considerable assurance of their reliability.'" Id. at 130 (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 300 (1973)); see also State v. Bronson, 204 Ariz. 321, ___, 23, 63 P.3d 1058, 1063 (App. 2003).
Rule 804(b)(3) defines a statement against interest. It provides as follows:
A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. For purposes of Rule 804(b)(3), a "statement" is generally given a narrow meaning, such that the rule covers "only those declarations or remarks within the confession that are individually self-inculpatory." Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599 (1994); see also Nieto, 186 Ariz. at 455, 924 P.2d at 459. Williamson held that the federal equivalent of Arizona Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) "does not allow admission of non-self inculpa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|