70 N.Y.2d 9 (1987)

When the prosecution seeks to introduce an out-of-court statement of a non-testifying accomplice against a defendant, the statement must meet stringent reliability requirements to be admissible as a declaration against penal interest.

Summary

Robert Brensic and Douglas Young were convicted in separate trials, each involving the admission of custodial confessions from non-testifying accomplices. The New York Court of Appeals consolidated their appeals to address the common issue of whether these confessions were properly admitted as declarations against penal interest. The Court held that the confessions in both cases failed to meet the strict reliability standards required for admissibility, particularly because the declarants had potential motives to falsify their statements. The Court emphasized the importance of a pre-trial hearing to assess the circumstances and reliability of such confessions, and therefore reversed the convictions and ordered new trials.

Facts

In Brensic, Robert Brensic was convicted of murder and manslaughter in the death of John Pius. The prosecution introduced a confession from Peter Quartararo, a non-testifying accomplice, which implicated Brensic in the crime. Quartararo’s confession was obtained after hours of custodial questioning and multiple versions of the events. In Young, Douglas Young was convicted of rape and robbery. The prosecution introduced a redacted confession from David Littles, another suspect, who was unavailable to testify. Littles’ confession implicated Young in the attack. Littles made the confession after seeing Young in custody at the police station.

Procedural History

In Brensic, the trial court conducted a Settles hearing and ruled Peter Quartararo’s custodial confession made in his mother’s presence was admissible after redaction. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. In Young, the trial court did not conduct a Settles hearing but allowed David Littles’ confession into evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed Young’s conviction. Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which consolidated them to address the common legal issue.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial courts erred in admitting the confessions of non-testifying accomplices as declarations against penal interest, given the potential unreliability of such statements?

2. Whether the admission of these confessions violated the defendants’ rights under the New York evidentiary law?

Holding

1. No, because the People failed to establish sufficient indicia of reliability to overcome the presumption of unreliability attached to custodial confessions from accomplices, especially when there is a motive to falsify.

2. Yes, because the confessions did not meet the prerequisites for reliability as set forth in People v. Settles and People v. Maerling, making them inadmissible hearsay.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that out-of-court statements introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay and admissible only if they fall within a recognized exception, such as declarations against penal interest. When the prosecution seeks to introduce a non-testifying accomplice’s confession to inculpate the defendant, it must meet an even more exacting standard to protect the defendant’s due process rights. The Court stated, “[T]he trial court must find that the interest compromised is ‘of sufficient magnitude or consequence to the declarant to all but rule out any motive to falsify.’” The Court found significant flaws in the admission of the confessions in both cases. In Brensic, the Court emphasized that Quartararo’s confession was obtained after lengthy custodial questioning as a juvenile, with changing versions of events, which raised concerns about its reliability. The presence of Quartararo’s mother did not automatically ensure reliability. The Court noted that “[A] finding that a confession was voluntary for Fifth Amendment purposes does not bear on the question of whether the confession was also free of any desire, motive, or impulse to mitigate one’s own culpability by spreading blame or by overstating the involvement of an accomplice.”(citing Lee v. Illinois, 476 US 530) In Young, the trial court failed to conduct a proper hearing to assess the circumstances surrounding Littles’ confession. The Court emphasized, “The reliability of declarations against penal interest is predicated entirely on their disserving character and, as we have recognized many times, they may be uttered for a variety of motives, many of them for the declarant’s benefit.”