People v. Burns, 6 N.Y.3d 794 (2005)
A hearsay statement against penal interest is only admissible if the portion that inculpates the declarant is relevant to the issues at trial, and the exclusion of hearsay evidence does not violate a defendant’s right to present a defense if the defendant is afforded another reasonable means to elicit the information, or if the hearsay lacks indicia of reliability.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of a killing after a shootout. He sought to introduce a hearsay statement from a declarant who claimed to have seen armed Hispanic men near the scene around the time of the shooting, implying they were the real culprits. The trial court denied the request. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the only arguably self-inculpatory part of the statement (declarant’s admission to possessing heroin) was irrelevant to the issues at trial. Furthermore, the exclusion didn’t violate the defendant’s right to present a defense because the court offered an alternative means to obtain the testimony, and because the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.
Facts
Defendant was involved in a shootout in which the victim was killed and defendant was wounded.
Prior to implicating himself and two associates, the defendant gave multiple conflicting accounts of the incident, including a claim that Hispanic men had shot both him and the victim.
The People disclosed a statement from a declarant who placed five armed Hispanic men a few blocks from the shooting on the same day and time.
The declarant claimed one of the men gave him heroin and told him to leave because “they” had to discuss “something [they were] going to do” that night.
After declarant walked a couple blocks, he heard gunshots and saw the five men get into cars. The next day, one of the men told him that “[e]verything was taken care of last night.”
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defendant’s request to admit the declarant’s statement as a declaration against penal interest.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request to admit the declarant’s hearsay statement under the exception for declarations against penal interest.
Whether the trial court’s preclusion of the hearsay statement violated the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense.
Holding
No, because the only part of the statement that arguably fell within the exception (declarant’s admission to possessing heroin) had no relevance to the issues at trial.
No, because the trial court afforded the defendant another way to elicit the information and because the hearsay statement lacked any indicia of reliability.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that when determining whether to admit a statement as a declaration against penal interest, “only those parts which inculpate the declarant should be admitted” and the inculpatory portion must be relevant to the issues at trial. Here, the declarant’s admission to possessing heroin was not relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence in the shooting.
Regarding the defendant’s right to present a defense, the court noted that the trial court offered the defendant a “so ordered” subpoena for the declarant to testify and the opportunity to make an offer of proof. The court emphasized that the Confrontation Clause guarantees an “opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.”
Furthermore, the court stated that the defendant’s constitutional right to due process requires admission of hearsay evidence only when the declarant is unavailable and “the hearsay testimony is material, exculpatory and has sufficient indicia of reliability.” Here, the hearsay statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant its admission. The Court stated, “In any event, because the hearsay statement lacked any indicia of reliability, defendant was not entitled to introduce it.”