 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Torres12/3/1998
aring that an individual who causes another's death by wrongful act "although such death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to a felony . . . shall be liable to an action for damages"). See generally (" t is clear that tort liability for aiding and abetting a tortious action exists in New Mexico.").
{32} For these reasons, we join a growing number of jurisdictions and conclude that Rule 11-804(B)(3) is a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause. From this Conclusion, we infer that Barnett's statement is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Confrontation Clause of both the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution. As a result, the trial court's admission of Barnett's statement did not violate Torres's right of confrontation.
IV. Conclusion
{33} We adopt the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence in our interpretation of Rule 11-804(B)(3). Under the Court's Williamson analysis, declarations against interest must be evaluated on a statement-by-statement basis. Collateral and self-exculpatory statements of the declarant are inadmissible, while facially and contextually self-inculpatory statements may be admitted if the declarant is unavailable. Having examined Barnett's narrative to the police, we conclude that each of his statements was either facially or contextually self-inculpatory. We also conclude that Barnett did not attempt to shift blame to Torres. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Barnett's statement pursuant to Rule 11-804(B)(3).
{34} The Confrontation Clause requires that defendants have a meaningful opportunity to confront the witnesses against them. We conclude that Barnett's presence on the witness stand and his availability for unrestricted cross-examination satisfied the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Additionally, we conclude that the exception to the hearsay rule for statements against penal interest found in Rule 11-804(B)(3) is a firmly rooted exception. Thus, we conclude that Barnett's statement bore adequate indicia of reliability to satisfy the Confrontation Clause of both the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution. Therefore, we affirm Torres's convictions.
{35} IT IS SO ORDERED.
PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice
WE CONCUR:
JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
DAN A. McKINNON, III, Justice
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Chief Justice (dissenting)
I DISSENT.
GENE E. FRANCHINI, Chief Justice
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|