 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Prasertphong9/2/2003
tory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory." 512 U.S. at 600-01.
However, simply because "a statement inculpates another does not mean that the statement, when viewed in context, is not against the penal interest of the declarant." United States v. Sims, 879 F. Supp. 828, 832 (N.D. Ill. 1995). As Justice Scalia stated in his concurring opinion in Williamson, " declarant's statement is not magically transformed from a statement against penal interest into one that is inadmissible merely because the declarant names another person or implicates a possible co-defendant." 512 U.S. at 606 (Scalia, J. concurring). "What is required after Williamson... is that the court independently consider each portion of the statement and for each admitted portion find that it is sufficiently against the declarant's penal interest to declare it admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) and the Confrontation Clause." Sims, 879 F. Supp. at 832. The trial court here conducted such an inquiry.
After hearing arguments and reviewing Huerstel's statement, the trial judge ruled that " ll of [Huerstel's] statements are generally inculpatory." We agree. That Huerstel's statement is also somewhat inculpatory of Prasertphong does not make it any less inculpatory of Huerstel, nor any less reliable.
Huerstel's statement differs from Prasertphong's account only in his claims that it was Prasertphong who wanted to rob the Pizza Hut and that Prasertphong shot Moniz first. Had the trial court redacted those portions of the statement as apparently requested by Prasertphong, the jury would still have been left with the obvious inference that Prasertphong shot Moniz. Huerstel told the detectives that when he returned from the restroom, Prasertphong shot Moniz and handed him the gun. Huerstel claimed that he thought Curry was pulling a gun, and that he "freaked out and shot him and shot the other guy." Neither Curry nor Bloxham had a gun or any other weapon. Huerstel also admitted that he shot Moniz the second time after Prasertphong tried to snap her neck.
A redacted version of Huerstel's statement would have had Moniz already shot when Huerstel came out of the restroom; this version still left only one possible shooter: Prasertphong. Moreover, Huerstel's allegations that Prasertphong shot Moniz first and suggested robbing the Pizza Hut did not exculpate Huerstel at the expense of Prasertphong. Thus, Huerstel gained nothing by inculpating Prasertphong. See Lilly, 527 U.S. at 132. The trial court did not err in finding Huerstel's statement, when viewed in context, to be entirely against his penal interest and thus inherently reliable. The entire statement was properly admitted under Rule 106, and admission of the statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
IV.
Prasertphong also asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his motion to suppress his statement to the police because it was obtained in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ("VCCR"). Article 36 of the VCCR gives foreign national arrestees the right to consult with a consular official from the arrestee's home nation before answering police questions. Prasertphong argues that his rights under Article 36 of the VCCR were violated when the detectives failed to notify him "without delay" of his right to consult with a consular official of the Thai government.
Article 36 of the VCCR provides in relevant part the following:
f [a foreign national arrestee] so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending
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.
|
|