State v. Guyette, 2012 ME 9

Guyette was convicted of unlawful possession of scheduled drugs (Oxycodone) in Caribou; Drost testified inconsistently and Skidgel testified about the transaction; Guyette admitted purchasing drugs in a May 20 interview but denied knowledge of counterfeit bills; Drost, the trial witness, invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not testify; Skidgel recounted a May 16 laundromat parking lot deal involving pills and money; counterfeit fifty-dollar bills tied to the cash used in the deal; the trial court admitted out-of-court statements under Rule 804(b)(3) despite a defense objection; the jury later heard DeVeau’s interview with Drost and the audio recording; the court instructed rereading and replay during deliberations, leading to a guilty verdict; on appeal, the conviction was vacated for improper admission of the statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 804(b)(3) excludes the statements	Guyette argues the statements to Skidgel and DeVeau fall outside 804(b)(3)	Mead contends the statements were admissible under 804(b)(3)	No; statements do not fit 804(b)(3) as they implicated both declarant and accused
Whether the error was harmless	The statements were the sole link tying Guyette to the pills	There was other sufficient evidence to support the conviction	No; error was not harmless; conviction vacated

State v. Vaughan, 2009 ME 63 (Me. 2009) (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
State v. Reese, 2005 ME 87 (Me. 2005) (unavailability required for 804(b)(3))
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (co-defendant confession in joint trial violates Confrontation Clause)
State v. Platt, 1997 ME 229 (Me. 1997) (last sentence of 804(b)(3) not limited to redacted confessions)
State v. Chavez, 956 N.E.2d 709 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (indiana rule 804(b)(3) last sentence excludes statements implicating both declarant and accused)
Burkett v. State, 842 S.W.2d 857 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992) (excluded statements against accused implicating both)