*1 PEOPLE v POOLE PEOPLE v DHUE 2). (Calendar Argued May No. No. Decided Docket 94564. 21, 1993. September Poole, Dhue, Zina R. Kevin Downer were bound Edward A. and charges first-degree felony and murder over for trial on armed, being following prelimi- assault intent to rob while with nary The in the Judicial District Court. examination 31st Detroit, Roberts, City J., for the James E. Recorder’s Court murder, quashed regarding felony but affirmed the information The assault with intent to rob while armed. the bind over for P.J., Appeals, Kelly, Court J. and Jansen Michael JJ., part part in an T. and reversed in Lesinski, affirmed in J. curiam, holding by unpublished opinion per that a statement killing inculpating not Poole in himself and against Poole and at trial as substantive evidence admissible 139161). (Docket appeal. people Dhue No. The joined by opinion Brickley, Levin, Justice Justices an Supreme Griffin, held: Boyle, Riley, Mallett, Court requirements MRE The at issue satisfies 804(b)(3) the Confrontation Clause. 804(b)(3) that, provides 1. that a statement at the time MRE making, contrary or of its was so to the declarant’s interest subject liability that tended the declarant to civil or criminal person have made it it was a reasonable would not unless may rule true be admitted as an believed to be implicat- hearsay. portion excluding of Downer’s statement ing against him. is admissible as substantive evidence himself 804(b)(3) specifically Although address the admis- MRE does statement, i.e., portions sibility carry-over Downer’s Dhue, inculpating him di- those Poole and but not case, rectly, where, inculpation an in this a declarant’s as accomplice of a narrative of events is made context prompting inquiry, as initiative without declarant’s References 617, 618, 2d, 729, 957; Law Evidence §§ §§ Am Jur Criminal Statements; Hearsay. ALR under Declarations or See Index 444 Mich such, reliable, and, clearly against penal a whole is evidence at as substantive is admissible whole statement trial. as substantive evidence a statement admission of such 2. The *2 prosecutor the Clause where the Confrontation not violate does and as a witness is unavailable that the declarant can establish reliability falls adequate or indicia of bears the statement exception. Downer is firmly Because rooted a within and Dhue and being prosecuted offenses as Poole for the same charges, may not be called as the he relates to his statement history and, thus, the of the Given is unavailable. witness firmly however, that it is exception, it be concluded cannot against penal inter- evaluating whether a statement rooted. inculpates person to the declarant bears in addition est reliability it to be admitted as to allow indicia of sufficient person, must other courts the substantive evidence making surrounding the the circumstances evaluate Favoring admission would as its content. statement as well given; voluntarily made con- was the statement was whether referenced; made to fam- temporaneously with the events confederates, i.e., friends, colleagues, to someone to ily, or truth; speak likely and was declarant would whom the and spontaneously, of the declarant at the initiation uttered Favoring inquiry by in- prompting the listener. or without admissibility was made to law the statement would be whether inquiry prompting or of or at the officers enforcement listener; declarant, responsibility of the minimize the roie or declarant, avenge accomplice, or to to shift blame favor; or had a motive to lie curry the declarant and whether any other circum- also should consider the truth. Courts distort ap- reliability bearing the statement. When on the stance circumstances in which plied issue and the to the statement at reliability satisfy made, sufficient indicia there were it was concerns. Confrontation Clause remanded. Reversed and Cavanagh, dissenting, because the stated that Chief Justice implicated the the declarant’s statements penal against the not declarant’s in this crime were defendant 804(b)(3). interest, they under MRE inadmissible are Evidence, Michigan Rules the Federal Rules Unlike exception that would a "catch-all” Evidence do not include is not admissible permit evidence that the admission of reliable hearsay exception. any other under Inculpa- Against Hearsay — — — Interest Statements Evidence Right Accomplices — to Confrontation. tion accomplice inculpation is made of an a declarant’s Where Opinion op the Court initiative of a narrative of events at the declarant’s context prompting inquiry, clearly whole is without or as a and, such, reliable, the whole statement trial; the admission of as substantive admissible does violate such a statement as substantive evidence prosecutor can Confrontation Clause where establish as a witness and the declarant unavailable firmly adequate falls within a indicia of bears hearsay exception. rooted Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Frank J. Casey, General, O’Hair, John D. Pros- Solicitor Baughman, ecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Training Appeals, Chief, Research, people. for Cripps Stuart G. Friedman and David defendant. *3 Poole, Dhue, J. Zina Edward and Kevin
Levin, charges first-degree over on were bound felony murder and with intent to while assault rob being shooting 1990 in connection with the armed Bonanno, of Mack death of Robert Packing Company.1 the owner Appeals testimony The held the Court concerning Berry, Downer, Andre a cousin of implicating statement Downer made both Downer killing Bonanno, the and Poole in would be at time of trial as substantive inadmissable the against and Dhue.2 evidence single present people The whether a issue: 1 being being prosecuted together. Downer Poole are is Dhue and prosecuted separately. quash The trial Dhue Poole filed the information. motions granted respect felony charge judge the the motions with murder Appeals felony charge only. reinstated murder The Court of ordered the Poole, against Dhue. but not 2 (Docket curiam, July Unpublished opinion per 1992 decided 139161). No. 444 Mich out-of-court, noncustodial, unsworn-to declarant’s voluntarily statement, at the declarant’s made a law enforce other than initiation to someone inculpating officer, declarant and an the ment accomplice activity, be introduced can in criminal pursuant MRE at trial as substantive evidence 804(b)(3). the of Downer’s state- We conclude that inculpate Dhue are admissi- Poole and ment ble.
i preliminary examination The evidence that sometime between 5:00 tended show January 12, 1990, Poole and Downer 5:30 on a.m. vicinity immediate of the Mack Pack- were ing owner, Plant in Hamtramck to rob Robert opening day. Bonanno, for the There as he was Dhue, a em- also that Zina former was ployee using helped plan robbery Bonanno, procedures knowledge hab- of Bonanno’s her building Packing its, Mack which robbery attempt, During located. Bonanno course of range. close shot head at preliminary at the exami- Andre testified 804(b)(3) provides: MRE (b) exceptions. following Hearsay are not excluded if declarant unavailable as a witness: rule (3) interest. A which was at the Statement making contrary pecuniary time of its so far to the declarant’s interest, subject proprietary or so far tended to him to civil *4 by liability, or to invalid a claim him or criminal against render another, position person in his would that a reasonable it to true. A not have made the statement unless he believed be liability tending expose the to declarant to criminal statement and offered to corroborating exculpate the accused is not admissible unless clearly indicate the circumstances trustworthi- ness statement. op Opinion the Court Downer he and January later on nation4 of which the course during had a conversation in an at- somebody” "killed said he had and participated, in which Poole robbery tempted "Come he told Poole that, pulled up, a car when not let Poole would on, "guy” go.” let’s When him in the head: shot go, Downer the conversa- relate to the Court Q. you [C]ould about the Kevin Downer you had with tion that day? on that of this case circumstances and he Yes, in the house A. he told me he came said, "Cuz, I killed a man.” me, "Cuz, And I somebody.” I killed A. He told said, don’t believe said, me,” me that him and to Hamtramck while And he "You "Be for real.” happened, and he told him I asked what and Eddie, went they a friend named somebody], hit a lick rob [to just guy, he was talking to the Eddie was him and couple away from standing feet there door, him rushed open the Eddie guy went through and Eddie him the door push and tried door, helped rush so Kevin get him in the couldn’t That’s when him in the door. they pushed him and gun. pulled Kevin out he and after he indicate what did Q. And sir his business this man inside pushed Eddie had Mr. Downer he happened, what did gun pulled the happened then? say up and he was it a stick him was They A. told him they knocked wrestling them and with still down safe, open the get him to tried to up, pulled it then a car open wouldn’t
but he prosecutor’s agreement office. part with the an testified agreed prosecutor’s to recom testimony, office exchange his serving unrelated case in an he was the sentence mend that reduced Berry, According he initi probation. to time served concerning this mat prosecutor’s office with the communication ated angry testify with offering writing after he became a letter ter Downer April, *5 444 151 156 Mich Opinion of the Court Eddie, parking and he told in the lot [Downer] on, guy to let Eddie go.” And "Come let’s told he go so let Eddie go guy and the wouldn’t guy shot around and reached [Downer] head. mentioned there was that Downer Berry added attempt in to rob Mack involved else someone knew.”5 that Eddie Packing "somebody — ruled that the state- judge Court The Recorder’s cousin, inculpating Downer to his by ment made Poole, admitted as sub- was properly himself and preliminary at the examination. stantive evidence said: judge gave his Downer The circumstances which to its inherent trustworthiness attests [statement] and indicia of reliability. voluntarily his cousin while he was spontaneously confessed to family from He told a still under stress member, the event. officer, opposed to a enforcement law he became the focus participation his before suspicion. had no motive to any He therefore liability. Finally, mitigate his own fabricate or effort to exonerate himself Downer made no Indeed, accomplice "Eddie.” he his detriment of placed greater portion of criminal lia- clearly his For these bility squarely on own shoulders. reasons, portion Downer’s declaration inculpates the accused interest which inherently trustworthy therefore was [Poole] admissible at in this preliminary examination case. on Court’s Appeals,
The Court this relying Watkins, 627; 438 Mich People decision Berry’s testimony, that he saw In addition a bus driver testified building as one into the and identified Poole two men force Bonanno concerning Neighbors Poole testified men. of Dhue and of those incriminating Bonanno made them before after killed. v Poole of Down- (1991),6 ruled NW2d Poole and inculpating Berry er’s substantive not admissible as Dhue were Downer’s it was because Dhue. inculpate Poole and admissi- to be For Downer’s statement *6 against Poole ble as substantive admissible trial, must be Dhue at the statement Evidence, and admis- Rules of Michigan the under of Poole be violative of the statement cannot sion the Confrontation rights Dhue’s under Clause.7 Berry to conclude that Downer’s
We 804(b)(3) and of MRE requirements satisfies Clause, of the Court Confrontation reverse remand for trial. Appeals and
ii is a nar- Berry Downer made The statement morning the events of description rative to have 12, appears 1990. Downer’s focus January and his own the course of events describing been and, and role of Poole The actions actions. to, Dhue, were mentioned referred extent she was describing his own in the course by Downer related to Down- actions, insofar as only kill he had to some- that Berry er’s statement body. on his own initiative. spoke Berry him. Nor did encourage prompt did not
Berry 6 ask, requires Appeals a court to said that Watkins The Court regarding everything his own the confessor admitted "Given else crimes, alleged his interest also to participation was it alleged accomplices conduct?” and describe their name and accuse the pp of the declarant Slip op, the statement 2-3. The Court said inquiry accomplices is in to this if the answer admissible the affirmative. 1, Const, VI; art 20.§ Am Const US 444 Mich concerning inquire events the details of the describing. Downer was Watkins, the substan-
In this Court considered admissibility co- of custodial confessions tive majority inculpating accused. The defendants of the separate opinions, that, on Court, in ruled admitting presented, the statements the facts right of confronta- violate the defendants’ would tion. signifi- in Watkins was
The factual situation cantly in this case. from situation different Watkins, encour- were made the confessions pro- agement police and information was inquiry response to direct about vided defendants said events. Two of the Watkins’ they the fall alone.” did not want "take in Watkins had a 706. The declarants Mich motive roles and truth to minimize their or distort the lie responsibility.
potential criminal fraught thus with were Watkins present unreliability.8 unreliability is not Such *7 made in which under the circumstances Downer Berry to in this case. the statement Berry un- to is indeed an Downer’s statement statement, sworn, that will offered out-of-court prosecutor to the truth of its establish majority, opinions comprising explained the two As in one of uniquely presumed "properly at the outset to be statements are such and run-of-the-mill unreliable, typical, especially suspect much more so than added.) Watkins, See, also, (Emphasis p hearsay.” (1986), 530, 541; 2056; Illinois, L Ct 90 Ed 2d 514 v 476 US 106 S Lee Watkins, p quoted in 656: noted, subject hearsay, a "is to has been such confession As dangers inaccuracy which characterize
all generally. this, however, . . the arrest statements . More than special traditionally viewed have been with of a codefendant strong implicate suspicion. to the defen- Due to his motivation himself, codefendant’s and to exonerate dant are less credible than said or did about what the defendant ordinary hearsay evidence.” Poole attempting joined Downer contents: that Poole fatally that shot Bonanno and to rob attempt. such, As in the course of that Bonanno Berry clearly hearsay.9 to statement Downer’s provides hearsay is inadmissible MRE 802 that except rules as the other- as substantive evidence 804(b)(3)provides provide. exception an MRE wise at the time of "was for its pecu- making contrary far to the declarant’s so niary proprietary interest, or so far tended to liability subject .. . that to civil or criminal him person position not in his would have a reasonable made the statement unless it
he to be believed true.” Berry portion to of Downer’s statement
implicating Downer’s himself was made, it was interests at time tended subject responsibility to the him to criminal extent position person in that a reasonable Downer’s reported to would not have said what Downer is Berry Accordingly, have unless it was true. said portion comes of Downer’s statement within against penal inter- declarations est, and is admissible as substantive against him.10 804(b)(3) specifically address the
MRE does "carry portions admissibility over” of Down- portions Berry incul- er’s statement —the directly against pate Dhue, but are not question turn interest.11 We Downer’s carry-over of Downer’s state- whether language ment come within 9MRE 801. 804(b)(3). MRE Evidence, Michigan *8 of Federal of Rules Unlike the Rules exception to the rule contain "catch-all”
Evidence do not 804(b)(5). 803(24) hearsay FRE and And no evidence. See admission of other applies "carry-over” of to the rule statement. Downer’s 160 444 Mich 804(b)(3) purpose they of MRE so that are admissi- ble at trial as a matter of the law of evidence. perception persons
A events, witness’ of clarity accuracy memory, of the witness’ lucidity description persons of the witness’ evaluating credibility and events are critical in testimony.12 requires The law that witnesses be present trial, take an oath of truthfulness and subject be to cross-examination so that their credi- bility may properly be evaluated.13 The admission hearsay evidence is disfavored because it impossible, difficult, if not for the trier of fact to hearsay assess the statements or of hearsay declarant. The trier of fact is unable to view and evaluate the demeanor and manner making hearsay the declarant while state- hearsay ment. The has not been may vouched and thus the declarant not have felt "special obligation to tell the truth” that taking impor- results from the of an oath. Most tantly, opportunity there is no for cross-examina- regarding tion of the declarant the content of the hearsay statement.14 exceptions including Certain one for declara- — against penal
tions interest —have evolved that hearsay allow the admission of statements where general that, circumstances indicate unlike may pre- statements, such advisory sumed to be reliable.15 The committee 12 McCormick, (4th ed), 245, p Evidence § 13Id. 14Id., (Chadbourn pp 93-95; Wigmore, rev), § Evidence 1361-1362, pp 1-10.
§§ truth, course, evidence, ranging is that it as does from mere thirdhand rumors to sworn affidavits of credi observers, reliability, ble highest has as wide a scale of from the lowest, as we find testimonial or circumstan generally, depending tial upon all do perception, narration, memory, veracity frailties of and women. of men [McCormick, supra, p n 12 § 96.] *9 161 v Poole 804(b)(3), MRE FRE on which concerning said 804(b)(3) is modeled:16 of for guaranty reliability
The circumstantial assumption against the is the declarations that damaging interest are persons do not make statements which good themselves unless satisfied for that are true. reason the barring the rule principal The concern of together excep- all the hearsay, with admission unsworn, tions, the out-of-court is considering its and the circum- content statement in which it was made. stances Watkins, Poole, adoption urges on relying 804(b)(3) MRE that allow a construction would directly those a statement that only portions declarant to be admitted as substan- inculpate the however, where, conclude, We that tive evidence.17 here, inculpation of an accom- as the declarant’s of a narrative is made context plice events, any declarant’s initiative without clearly inquiry, that as whole is prompting such interest and as against declarant’s reliable, including portions is the whole statement — admissible as substan- inculpate that another —is 804(b)(3). pursuant trial MRE tive evidence at conclusion, guided by are reaching this we Committee Advisory comment of the 804(b)(3), concerning Evidence FRE Federal Rules of Michigan rule is on which the modeled:_ 804(b)(3) 804(b)(3) only is between MRE FRE difference person” Michigan "reasonable while rule refers that rule refers to a "reasonable man.” federal implies separated that must be so While Watkins may actually only admitted, incriminate declarant those justices signed by only of Watkins portion two Further, such, and, opinion of the constitute the Court. as did not already distinguishable stated. from for reasons Watkins this case 444 Mich Opinion op the Court
Whether a statement fact must be determined from the circumstances admitting each case. Thus a guilt implicating person, another made while cus- tody, may well be motivated a desire curry favor with the qualify authorities and hence fail to hand, interest. . . . On the other spoken circumstances, same words e.g., under different acquaintance, to an would no difficulty have *10 in qualifying. presents just The instant case the sort of situation spoken difficulty qualify- of that "would have no ing.”
hi Having decided that Downer’s entire statement 804(b)(3) is admissible under MRE as substantive evidence Poole and Dhue as a matter of evidence, law of we now consider whether admission of Downer’s statement violates Dhue and Poole’s Sixth Amendment
right of confronta- Supreme tion.18The United States Court held: sum, when a present declarant is not trial, for cross-examination the Confrontation normally requires showing Clause a that he is then, unavailable. Even his statement is admissi only adequate ble if it bears "indicia of reliabili ty.” Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence firmly falls within a Roberts, hearsay exception. rooted v 448 US [Ohio 597 (1980.)] 56, 66; 2531; 100 S Ct 65 L Ed 2d 18Although reliability we examine the issue of the of the statement separately requirements under the rules of evidence and for the Clause, the Confrontation we note that one federal court has com requirement mented that "There seems little reason to treat reliability differently approach in each context. Such an would be needlessly complex, requiring two bodies of case law where one will States, (CA 1991). do.” York v United 933 F2d
Admitting as substantive statement Downer’s the Confrontation not violate thus does prosecutor that Downer can establish if the Clause and his as a witness is unavailable adequate falls within indicia bears hearsay exception. firmly a rooted prosecuted being for the is also Because charged with, and state- offenses Poole same ment at issue relates pros- charges,
to those in this to call him as witness ecutor is unable aas wit- therefore unavailable Downer is case. ness.19 argues exception prosecutor firmly against penal
statements exception and, such, all such rooted requirements meet the for admissibil- Supreme ity States Court set forth United dissenting justices in the four While Roberts. 2056; 90 Illinois, 530; 106 S Ct L Ed Lee v 476 US (1986), that this 2d 514 would have ruled adopt firmly majority rooted, declined is that Considering history analysis. of this ex- ception,20 prosecutor’s concession that a and the *11 approach case-by-case to the determination of reli- appropriate, ability for is no need us is there exception determine whether for against penal firmly interest is rooted. by a must decide case case whether
Courts
thus
against penal
also incul-
interest
that
19
that
and Dhue do not contest
the assertion
Poole
unavailable as witness.
20
against
penal
Initially,
pecuniary
interests were
declarations
1844,
exceptions
recognized
accepted
rule. In
Case,
however,
Peerage
Eng Rep
England’s
8
in The Sussex
hearsay exception for
that
declarations
House of Lords declared
against pecuniary
applied only
or
against
proprietary
to declarations
interest
penal
against
interest.
interests
declarations
holding.
widespread
Federal Rules of
criticism of this
There was
interest,
penal
Evidence, adding
exception
declarations
promulgated until 1972.
were not
The indicia of to establish particularized guar- that a statement has satisfy antees of trustworthiness sufficient to Con- by frontation Clause concerns must exist virtue of the inherent trustworthiness of the statement and may by extrinsic, not be established corroborative Wright. Wright, evidence. See Idaho v the Court " explained 'particularized guarantees that, totality trustworthiness’ must be shown from the circumstances, but we think the relevant only circumstances the include those that surround making of the statement and that render the particularly worthy p declarant Id., of belief.” 21 Although prosecutor argues the declaration exception rooted, firmly argue interest he does not for a finding reliability per urges se. Rather he this Court to find that only proper such statements are admissible if the foundation is laid concerning statements of the declarant, reliability. showing their This would include a voluntary, responsibility were do not diminish the or role declarant, blame, avenge and were not made to shift curry prosecutor thus, effect, favor. The asks this adopt case-by-case approach admissibility. Court to disagree Poole does not that statements such as the statement at prosecutor satisfy requirements issue are if admissible can set arguing forth in Roberts. While that such statements should never be reliable, asserting admitted because ration allow the such case, are not that the decla- against penal firmly is not rooted so as to adoption se, reliability per of a rule of Poole concedes that prosecutor make, statements can be admissible if the can case showing reliability. an individualized admissible, asserts to be the statement must have sufficient indicia of that cross-examination of the declarant anything. Clearly, required would not add this overstates what is under Roberts and Mancusi. *12 v evaluating a statement whether inculpates person addition reliability of bears sufficient indicia declarant it to admitted as substantive evidence allow against person, must the
the other courts evaluate surrounding making of the the circumstances well as content. statement as its following presence of would the factors a statement: the favor admission such whether (2) (1) voluntarily given, made con- statement was (3) temporaneously referenced, with the events family, colleagues, friends, or confederates made to is, would to whom the declarant —that someone (4) spontane- speak likely truth, and uttered the ously without at the initiation of the declarant and prompting inquiry by the listener. or presence following hand, the other
On finding inadmissibility: favor a factors would (1) law made to en- the statement was whether forcement officers prompting inquiry or at the (2) responsi- listener, the role or minimizes bility blame to ac- declarant or shifts (3) avenge complice, the declarant or made to (4) curry favor, had a the declarant whether distort the truth. motive lie or any consider other circum- should also Courts bearing on of the statement stance Layton, generally, See, at United States issue. 1988). (CA 1404-1406 While 855 F2d pres- foregoing exclusive, not factors are particular factor is deci- ence or absence totality circumstances must indi- sive, sufficiently reliable to the statement cate al- its as substantive evidence allow admission though to cross-examine the defendant is unable the declarant.
Applying to the statement these considerations issue, find that Downer’s statement we *13 444 Mich by Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, C.J. and the in it circumstances which was made have reliability satisfy sufficient indicia of Confronta- tion Clause concerns and to allow its admission as substantive evidence at trial. Downer’s statement clearly against is references to Poole and of a narrative his own interest and contains only in
Dhue the context description the events of January culminating shooting 12, 1990, in the Robert Bonanno. The statement was made to one relatives, of Downer’s not to a law enforcement voluntarily, spontaneous, It officer. was made and was given on the initiative and whim of Downer. prompted by Berry,
The statement was not inquiry he made no of Downer about the events referenced the statement. The statement does attempted not minimize Downer’s role in the rob- bery responsibility or his for the murder of Bo- attempt nanno. Nor does it to shift blame to Poole or Dhue. Downer did not make the statement avenge curry nothing himself or to favor. There is indicating that Downer had a motive to lie or relating distort the truth in the details of the attempted robbery Berry. Nor does the record any weighing contain against other fact or circumstance of Downer’s statement Berry. We conclude that Downer’s statement is admissible as substantive evidence Poole and Dhue at trial.
Reversed and remanded for trial. Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Griffin, Mallett, JJ., J. Levin, concurred with (dissenting). majority Cavanagh, C.J. The holds portion that naming statements, the declarant’s accomplice the defendant as an language purpose crime, "come[s] within the 804(b)(3) of MEE so are admissible at People v Opinion Dissenting Cavanagh, C.J. Ante, pp of evidence.”* of the law trial a matter declarant’s 159-160. this crime were the defendant implicated inter
not, however,
the declarant’s
MRE
est,
inadmissible
under
therefore
and are
Watkins,
627, 649-650;
804(b)(3).
Mich
(1991).
I
Accordingly,
respectfully
i
*14
and offered
made out
court
A statement
MRE
hearsay.
asserted is
the
of the matter
truth
unreliable,
presumptively
is
Hearsay
801.
evidence
Wright,
Idaho v
110 S
805, 821-823;
Ct
497 US
(1990), and,
therefore,
One 804(b)(3), part: pertinent which in provides MRE A the time of its statement which at making subject ... far criminal declar- so tended [the . . liability . that a rea- to civil or ant] sonable made person position in his would not have it to unless he believed be statement * permit majority adopts holding, a rule that would In so parties third to be as statements of used substantive long guilt "is made in the context of an accused’s of prompting as statement events, any at the declarant’s initiative without a narrative of clearly inquiry, or as a whole statement] [and] [the Ante, p against . . interest . .” 161. the declarant’s 444 Mich by Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, C.J. tending expose true. A statement to criminal accused cumstances the declarant liability exculpate and offered to the cir- corroborating not admissible unless clearly indicate the trustworthiness the statement.
This Court considered the recently application of in involving this rule a case an accomplice’s con- implicated fession that in others Watkins. The opinion lead rejected the notion that inculpating others are "admissible under MRE 804(b)(3) simply appear because they within the same confession as statements concededly against Id., . . . .” p After [declarant’s] " noting that basis of the is the '[t]he principle experience that a statement asserting a fact distinctly against one’s interest is unlikely ” incorrect,’ deliberately heedlessly false id. at we stated: It thus follows elementary logic most our ported insofar as the confidence pur- trustworthiness of a only interest extends specific factual assertions contained are, fact,
within declarant’s interest. the statement
[Id. 636.] *15 Accordingly, we set forth this rule: sought Each factual assertion to be admitted exception under that must be viewed as narrowly and specifically possible, as reasonably and the court must separately ask speciñc whether each assertion so intrinsically against is the declarant’s person interest that a reasonable would not have said it words, unless it were true. other extent such logically statements can be and rea- sonably severed and dealt with independently, they should be. assertions, .... With all such the inquiry is
analytically quite simple: everything Given else Dissenting Opinion Cavanagh, C.J. regarding his own admitted that the [declarant] crimes, against alleged itwas participation in the alleged to name and accuse his interest also at 646- accomplices and describe their conduct? [Id. Emphasis 648. added.] this to the facts of case of this rule
Application of Appeals of the Court the decision indicates against clearly it was affirmed. While should be killing the to admit to penal interest Downer’s it was not during robbery, attempted victim to "Eddie penal his add against him his conduct. was with describe [Poole]” Likewise, penal inter- it not Downer’s ” " that Eddie knew’ 'somebody est to state that attempt. robbery Slip op in the was also involved n on the differences between focuses majority Watkins, notably the absence this most case allegedly involvement. Downer governmental not cousin and statements his made the of the day made the The statement was police. of the defendants were any and before crime himself, took most blame custody. Accordingly, that he was the shooter. admitting arguably are reli- disputed that, this, however, I unlike the say To would able. Evidence, there no "catch-all” Rules Federal Michigan Rules of Evidence exception of reliable evidence the admission permit other any not under admissible if the statements were rule. Accordingly, interest, then the declarant’s not. Clearly, they were inadmissible! are the Court of I affirm decision would Appeals.