*1 beyond verdict support jury fact does side toward his left in the chair doubt. reasonable shooting, it was the third direction Yanders, and when the struck shot is affirmed. The trial court fired, Mosley, who was Mack first shot was the time grandfather yard DeBRULER, SHEPARD, C.J., ground then shooting, fell to the JJ., KRAHULIK, concur. DICKSON in an at- the house rolling toward started Callоway, who was cover. tempt to seek house, her appellant from the
watching appellant. on
attention trial, the presented at the facts
Under making the deduc-
jury was warranted shots, Yan- hearing first
tion that posi- from his seated began to move ders THOMAS, Appellant, Deama W. from which away from the direction tion move- coming, and that his were the shots line of right side to the exposed ments Indiana, Appeliee. STATE record in this fire. There is no evidence No. 71S03-9110-CR-845. during shooting occurred any other positively Appellant was incident. of Indiana. Court him people several knew identified 25, 1991. Oct. fired a shot. only one who to be the although Appellant claims in recovered-two from were
three bullets body house and onе from side the per tests were ballistics
Yanders-no removed bullet
formed. body ap from the decedent's
pathologists produced at all. lost and not
parently was quite tests are often
Although ballistics of a fatal demonstrate the source
used to
bullet, crime do not the elements such evidence.
require the State
Ind.,
Allen v. State bar, question is no case at there supports the conclusion
the evidence It cannot be fired the fatal shot.
appellant necessary that the ballistics tests
said this fact.
to establish the State's
Appellant also contends there insufficient because
evidence was presented. In a testimony police no case at bar where such as in the
situation knew eye witnesses who there are several well, appellant it is obvious upon their case was based entire State's case
testimony. is no facet of this There necessity police tes indicates the question before this Court
timony. The evidence to there was sufficient
whether reason jury beyond a
support verdict the evidence We find that
able doubt. *2 trial, Thomas'
During period before matter Nelson was arrested different There, allegedly jail. held in Nelson people he bragged to a number of robbery for Thomas committed the to be tried. Nelson as a witness dur- Thomas called ing question trial in order to him re- his statements, in- but Nelson garding the Fifth Amendment. Thomas next voked Rubin, Mishawaka, appel- for Joseph F. to call 20 witnesses who would proposed lant. testify as to Nelson's statements. This Gen., Pearson, E. Atty. Louis Linley E. proffer refused the trial court Gen., Indianapolis, Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Appeals in an un- hearsay. The Court of appellee. for upheld the published memorandum decision action, 569 N.E.2d hold- trial court's law, that, ing existing PETITION TO TRANSFER under Indiana it was ON party proper to exclude third confessions KRAHULIK, Justice. interest, against рenal be- and declarations sev- Defendant-Appellant Thomas raises "permeated untrust- cause such are stemming from conviction eral issues worthiness," citing Partlow State find resolu- robbery. Because we for bank (1984) Ind., 453 N.E.2d cert. denied require a tion of one of these issues will 1072, 104 S.Ct. trial, only address that issue. new we holding. this disagree with 219. We FACTS Against Penal Interest Declarations 7, 1988, Savings the Sobieski On June against fact that declarations Despite the Indiana, Bend, held and Loan South long pecuniary interest proprietary holdup up. tellers described the Two bank exceptions to the rule have been considered heavy-set dark-complected male. man as a against penal hearsay, declarations against liquor Bailey, nearby at a a cashier Vieki The search forbidden. interest have been hearing re- store, police after contacted for this exclu the historical rationale for description of robbery and a ports of the the case of sionary rule leads to Sussex perpetrator, and informed them alleged following in 1848 arose Peerage, which matching description had a male 71 CL. & F. the Duke of Sussex. death of from her at a time purchased cigarettes (1844). Augustus Eng.Rеp. 1034 robbery. store to the approximate to the asserted to succeed Frederick D'Este photo array. to view a clerk was asked "honors, dignities privileges" of photos did not contain a group This father, D'Este claimed that an the Duke. however, did, in- of Thomas. It picture England had mar- offiсial of Church Bailey Nelson. picture of Eric clude a mother in Duke and D'Este's ried the Nelson, the identification was chose but had not received Rome. The Duke positive a one. and, thus, was King's permission however Royal Marriage marrying outside Later, tip implicating a police received stоppers" pro- Act. D'Este through a "crime the testi- defendant offered to son, police changed the focus would testi- gram. mony official's perform- him told about fy that his father Subsequently, Thomas. attention to their marriage ceremony of between ing the tellers at was selected bank Thomas Rome. mother D'Este's included. Duke and Nelson was not lineup crime it was a argued that because closely resem- D'Este and Thomas Nelson complied had not marry one who appeared to- and never one another bled Act, state- the official's Marriage lineup. Royal photo-array or a gether in either 226% testimony of held that The Court thus, and, interest penal against
ment was "per such contained in Chambers fered Privi- trustworthy. The Committee trustworthiness" assurances suasive refused Lords the House leges rationale the basic within "well it was and, thus, prohi- consider *3 for declara exception hearsay rule penal against declarations against bition 302, 93 S.Ct. at interest." Id. against tions that the fact Despite born. was interest The Court 1049, at 313. L.Ed.2d 35 at belittled States the United in early scholars sheer number that "the noted, example, the United Peerage, in decision Sussex the cor provided independent confеssions of rule the accepted Supreme Court States 300, 93 S.Ct. Id. at for each." roboration v. The Unit Donnelly scrutiny in without also The Court 1048, at 312. 35 L.Ed.2d at 449, 243, 33 S.Ct. (1913), U.S. 228 ed States clearly was confession each that considered L.Ed. 820. 57 declarant, be interest the against reversed Court 1973, knowledge that In with the made it was cause suсh disclo v. Missis and that be disclosed decided Chambers position and it could S.Ct. 1038, 284, 35 93 prosecution. in sippi result sure could sim factual 297, some case with L.Ed.2d implicitly stat- holding, the Court By this considering. In are one we ilarity to the by drafters proposed view then ed the infringe Chambers, claimed defendant of Evidence. Rules the Federal of denied he was process of due ment Rules of of the Federal adopted version witnesses present four to opportunity ap- mirrors the 804(b)(8)closely Evidence made to as to statements testify would by the taken proach McDonald, naming party, by a third them that: provides Chambers. оf the crime perpetrator himself The follow- Exceptions. (b) Hearsay accused. Chambers which hearsay rule by the not excluded ing are wit- as a is unavailable if the declarant not was careful Court holding, the In its ness: to rights traditional on the State's to tred * * * * * * procedure. of criminal rules its own fashion A Intеrest. Against (8) Statement that Cham determined instead The Court of its the time was at statement violated rights had been process due bers' declarant's contrary to the making so far circum facts and "under because interest, so or proprietary or pecuniary case, ruling of this stances to the deсlarant subject to far tended a fair trial." Chambers deprived court render liability, or to criminal civil or 1049, at L.Ed.2d 303, at 93 S.Ct. at Id. against declarant a claim invalid that position blan took the The Court 313. another, that a reasonable against inadmissibility of declarations ket made have position would declarant's and unneces improper interest penal to be believing it unless statement that noted Chambers The Court sary. expose the tending to true. A than the more fundamental rights are "few offered liability and to criminal declarant present a defense." to accused right of an not admissi- is the accusеd exculpate at 93 S.Ct. Id. corroborating circumstances unless ble however, say, on to went The Court 313. the trustworthiness clearly indicate rules comply with must the accused that the statement. reliability fairness and designed to assure 804(b)(8). rule serves This Fed.R.Evid. rule of no "Although perhaps of result. right to process his due defendant assure more respected or been more has evidence protect- favor while in his evidence than jury trials applied frequently evi- ability to exclude court's ing the trial hearsay, ex the exclusion applicable insufficiently irrelevant is dence the introduction allow tailored to ceptions trustworthy. be likely to in fact of evidence Evi- Rules the Federal time At the Id. at long existed." trustworthy have drafted, charged critics being dence were L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. "per that such evidence was penal easily held against that, allowing declarations untrustworthiness." deluged by meated with interest, would be the сourts testimony re- perjured giving witnesses contrast, here, Chambers, as in suffi- made or that were not garding statements corroborating evidence exists to allow cient false state- testimony regarding truthful present- exculpatory to be unsavory character of possible ments. Particularly important is the fаct ed. in these and the declarant the witness both originally selected as Nelson was Wigmore, how- this fear. reinforced cases but, stoppers' "crime after the perpetrator, others, rejected ever, many among received, Nel- tip implicating Thomas noting "any rule charges criticаl these investigation dropped from the son was *4 man in exonerat- an honest hampers any lineups included in future and was not rule, if it also is a bad even ing himself Additionally, allegedly he arrays. photo or an falsely passing in for villain hampers a people regarding bragged many as 20 to Evidence, 1477 Wigmorе 5 innocent." § great in robbery, which he described the Rev.1974). reject of- (Chadbourn To 859 ex- corroboration Clearly, sufficient detail. it be testimony merely because could fered the to indicate the trustworthiness isted testimony. reject all false would be Thus, the rules pursuant statements. have today, Thomas should bеen adopted have Rules of Evidence The Federal of Nelson's present evidence allowed to years. re over 16 Our in use for been against interest. statements rule considered suggests that the search transfer, accept hereby Accordingly, we defendant is effective. The here has been remand for conviction and reverse Thomas' introduce all evi opportunity to given the a new trial. Simultaneously, the in his favor. dence keep from discretion to judge retains SHEPARD, C.J., and and DeBRULER statements that do of fact those the trier DICKSON, JJ., concur. assurances actually present sufficient not GIVAN, J., dissents, separate opin- was, made. The in the statement ion. the traditional role fact retains trier of believability state of each assessing the PETITION CRIMINAL ON truth. deciphering the ment and TRANSFER TO in conflict with this This rule is not Justice, GIVAN, dissenting. holdings in Part post-Ckambers Court's majority from the dissent respectfully I (1978),269 v. Taggart or State low v. State correctly citing After in this case. opinion neither N.E.2d because Ind. barring the admis history of the the "corrobo Taggart nor contained Partlow by third of confessions sion into evidence indicating the trust rating circumstances issue, majority the to the crime parties To the con the statement." worthiness of the Unit states alleged "admission" Taggart in trary, in position Chambers ed States reversed confession which typewritten of a consisted 284, 93 (1973),410 U.S. S.Ct. Mississippi to the defen for sale the declarant offered I submit 297. would in little hesitation Court had dant. This a total was not in the decision Chambers rejection of this court's upholding the trial I еvidentiary rule nor do reversal of the "persuasive it lacked evidence because majority agree the statement that charac of trustworthiness assurances factually similar opinion that Chambers in Chambers." the statements terized case at bar. to the Partlow, Similarly, in at 919. N.E.2d officers, attemрt- Chambers, police and the statement had "recanted declarant arrest, severe had met with an ing to effect statement had made the that he claimed people, large group from a opposition family had threat been only because family." melee, were fired shots during the оf the defendant's by a member ened and killed one struck the crowd which from Again, this Court 53 N.E.2d 4 had making the statement gart, one of Chambers officers. $5,000. Taggart sale to it for struck offered and was crowd persons officer. by the wounded returned fire bar, no confu- there was the case officers one, including sevеral However, no in Cham- existed that which such as sion Chambers to state able present, pin- unable authorities where bers or that fatal shot fired the one who large crowd. shot from fired a point who any shot. fired in fact he either was that in this case only issue shooting, a man after Sometime perpetrated appellant Nelson Eric consulting McDonald, first time had at one named Although Nelson robbery. friend, personal awas minister who awith array, photographic identified been gave a attorney and to Chambers' went ap- when appellant, include did not officer. shot the he sworn in which lineup placed in a pellant was prior on three attorney that -the He told included, tellers the bank Nelson was he friends that informed he had occasions man. holdup him as the identified However, af- shooting. committed similarity of great upon the turns issue repudiated his arrest, McDonald ter Also, appеllant. of Nelson appearance released. eventually was Chambers, very little the facts unlike *5 the United Powell, writing for Justice Nelson's upon placed reliability could be Court, that: observed States inmates to other braggadocio measure, thwarted he was large "In other held on he was jаil where of his portion this attempt to never These statements charges. of cer- application by the strict defense any authority one persons made evidence.... rules of Mississippi tain ruling jail. inmates of the than other evidentiary these application in stat- undoubtedly correct in Chambers fundamentally trial rendered rules a justify facts can given set of ing a process due him of deprived and unfair rule. How- general from the departure of law." factual situation ever, nothing in the I see 1043, 290-91, at 93 S.Ct. 410 U.S. at Id. justify such can bar which case at in the 305. L.Ed.2d at departure. facts of specific observing that the After in the case hold that would I therefore anof implementation required the the case I would properly. applied rule was bar rule, Pow- hearsay Justice exception to the court. affirm the ell stated: establish we judgment, reaching this "In law. of constitutional principles no new any signal diminu holding our Nor does traditionally accorded respect
tion and in the establishment the States tri criminal their own implementation McCARTY, Appellant W. John Rather, we procedures. al rules (Plaintiff Below), facts that under simply quite hold rul this ease and circumstances AMER OF CORPORATION HOSPITAL deprive Chambers court the trial ings of Hospi Rеgional ICA, Haute Terre 303-04, trial." Id. a fair Below). (Defendants tal, Appellees L.Ed.2d 93 S.Ct. No. 77S01-9110-CV-847. (1978), 269 Ind. Taggart v. State majority, by cited N.E.2d Indiana. recognized exceptions were from Chambers. quotation 1991. including Oct. held that correctly this Court There depends such a statement admissibility of the trustworthiness upon large part Tag- making the statement.