*1 346 Clifford and Justice Schreiber in this join opin-
ion. Hughes and Justices affirmance —Chief
tain, Sullivan and Pashman —4. in
Concurring in part part —Justices Clif- ford and Schreiber Conford —3. JERSEY,
STATE OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, NEW v. POWERS, ARMAND D. DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 22, February Vaarsi, Mr. Mart Deputy General, Attorney argued the cause for appellant William F. (Mr. Hyland, Attorney Gen- eral of New Jersey, attorney). Kahn, A. Philip counsel, designated argued cause
for Ness, respondent (Mr. Van Stanley Defender, Public attorney).
Per Curiam. The affirmed for substantially the reasons in the expressed majority opinion of the Appel Gaines, late State v. 147 N. J. Super. Clifford, J., The trial dissenting. held inadmissi ble the statements under here. scrutiny The wit testifying ness was the officer. arresting Defendant Powers sought introduce what his co-defendant, non-appearing Phillips, told the officer a “few hours” after the arrest as an to the hearsay rule Evid. R. contemplated by 63(10).
The statements came to on cross-examination light Powers’ attorney attorney defendant, for another
347 in voir forth in full Gaines, They Ap- on dire. set The Division 147 N. Super. (1975). J. pellate opinion, *2 of not inculpatory trial as “equivocal,” termed them The Appellate of Powers. Phillips although exculpatory conviction, hold- the one reversed judge dissenting, ad- were does the statements Court) now this that ing (as describes them as a The State’s brief missible matter of law. reliability of dubious as “uncorroborated statements hearsay of the defendant made an and competency accomplice that to for trial.” with agreement who failed appear My and proof my characterization of the proffered disagreement tome dissent. the its holding admissibility obliges with of as hearsay. the face of excludable On it the statements are as an excep come all must they qualify To into evidence at any feature of the An tion to rule. hearsay indispensable or reliability. trustworthiness is some indicia of a introduction of that So it is Evid. R. 63(10) permits the rationale in interest, the declaration against underlying a is true, declarant unless it is context that present being deep him into to to calculated likely say get not something at cited rule is that of the specific requirement trouble. subjected far the the statement so time it was made the in his man that reasonable liability to criminal a declarant be it to it unless he believed would have made not position true.
I with the trial of the statements judge’s agree appraisal us as no “equivocal.” before At time the declarant ever did admit his when the even While creativeness guilt, pressed. of the which leads to the conclusion that these reasoning admirable, is that statements conclusion inculpatory me, I do not that mak- essentially eludes because perceive so to the criminal Phillips exposed statements ing far himself their truth not liability that but for the declarations would made. this ingredient, have been And absent the emphasized remain even if declar- statements inadmissible the against interest, for it against not all declarations ant’s penal admissible. interest which are
There was ample motive for what he Phillips say did. The record shows that he and Powers were friends of at least two years’ more standing possibly closely related. The statements been made having arrest, a “few hours” after there was time to fabricate, ponder thus out ruling any of quality These spontaniety. other previously referred to deficiencies in glaring the circumstances sur- the unsworn rounding statements serve to rob them of the requisite of safeguards trustworthiness and reliability.
I share the apprehension Fritz, below, of Judge that lax and of the imprecise rule application may “destroy sound concern historically quality doubtful respecting of testimony.” I would hearsay reverse the Divi- Appellate sion and reinstate the of conviction. Sohkeibee authorizes me to note his concurrence *3 in this opinion. — Hughes, Chief Justices affirmance —
tain, Pashman Sullivan Coneoed 5. — — For reversal Justices Clieeobd Sohkeibee. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION INSUR COMPANY, CORPORATION, ANCE A PLAINTIFF-APPEL LANT, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COM (GEICO), CORPORATION, PANY DEFENDANT-RE SPONDENT, ROMBERGER, AND DAVID DEFENDANT. February 28,
Mr. Alan R. Schmoll argued the cause for appellant Scatchard, Capehart & (Messrs. attorneys). D. Roy Cummins argued the cause for respondent.