Title: Paden v. Commonwealth

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, Koontz, and 
Kinser, JJ., and Stephenson, Senior Justice 
 
KARSENE PADEN 
 
v.  Record No. 991920     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY 
 
 
 
April 21, 2000 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal of a criminal conviction, we consider 
whether certain evidence was properly admitted by the trial 
court. 
 
Karsene Paden was charged with robbery at a Regal Cinema 
Theater in Hampton.  He was tried, along with two 
codefendants, in a bench trial before the Circuit Court of the 
City of Hampton.  The trial court found Paden guilty of the 
offenses charged and the Court of Appeals denied Paden's 
petition for appeal by unpublished order.  Paden v. 
Commonwealth, Record No. 2567-98-1, May 5, 1999.  We awarded 
Paden an appeal. 
 
Paden first objects to the admission into evidence of 
testimony by Detective George Burton concerning a statement 
made by Olivier D. Dixon, one of Paden's codefendants.  
Detective Burton testified that Dixon told him that Paden "was 
the first one to go up stairs" at the movie theater, that 
Paden, accompanied by Antwan Kingsberry, was "going down the 
hall with the mask on," that Dixon saw Kingsberry and Paden 
putting money into a bag, and that before the group left the 
theater, Paden gave Dixon $100.  Paden argues that this 
testimony was hearsay and thus inadmissible. 
 
Paden acknowledges that Detective Burton's testimony 
regarding Dixon's statement would have been admissible as an 
exception to the hearsay rule if the Commonwealth had 
established that Dixon was unavailable to testify, that the 
declaration was against Dixon's penal interest, and that the 
statement was reliable.  Ellison v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 404, 
408, 247 S.E.2d 685, 688 (1978).  However, Paden asserts that 
the Commonwealth failed to establish any of these factors. 
 
According to Paden, the Commonwealth did not establish 
the first factor, Dixon's unavailability to testify, because 
Dixon was present at trial and his attorney stated that Dixon 
was prepared to testify.  The Commonwealth argues that, 
regardless of the representations made by Dixon's counsel, 
Dixon was unavailable to testify because Dixon could not be 
compelled to give evidence against himself and because the 
decision whether to testify was personal to Dixon and not his 
attorney. 
 
The Commonwealth correctly recites the rights of 
codefendant Dixon.  Nevertheless, until Dixon asserted those 
rights, he remained available to testify.  Under these 
circumstances, the Commonwealth failed to establish that Dixon 
 
2
was unavailable to testify, and the trial court therefore 
erred in admitting the hearsay testimony of Detective Burton.  
Id.; see also Atkins v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 160, 176, 510 
S.E.2d 445, 455 (1999)("Nor could the statement have been 
admitted as being against penal interest, since Atkins, the 
declarant, was not 'unavailable' to testify at trial, which is 
a prerequisite to invoke that exception to the hearsay 
rule."); Chandler v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 270, 279 n.1, 455 
S.E.2d 219, 224 n.1 (1995)("To be an admissible declaration 
against penal interest, the statement must also be made by an 
unavailable declarant."). 
 
Paden also asserts that the trial court erred in 
admitting a letter written by Paden to his brother, 
codefendant Antwan Kingsberry, while both were in jail.  The 
letter, in pertinent part, stated: 
[T]his is the deal.  I'm going to need to know what 
you told your lawyer about the case.  Even though I 
haven't seen my lawyer yet I know what I'm saying.  
I going to deny every thing.  If my lawyer asks me, 
why would he involve my name, I'm going to say me & 
him had an altercation about 8 or 9 months, meaning 
he stole some money and a pager from me & haven't 
liked each other since.  As far as you and I, on the 
day of the robbery, I saw you early that morning and 
that was it.  I was with Kashamere that day cause I 
was suppose to baby sit for her.  Yo, MAKE SURE you 
tell me everything you told your lawyer . . . 
 
 
3
Paden objected to the admission of this letter asserting it 
was not an admission or "statement against self interest."  We 
disagree. 
 
This statement can be interpreted as an attempt by Paden 
to establish an alibi through statements consistent with his 
codefendant Kingsberry and, thereby, conceal his guilt.  
Extra-judicial admissions that tend to show guilt, even if not 
confessions, are admissible as party admissions.  Prince v. 
Commonwealth, 228 Va. 610, 613, 324 S.E.2d 660, 662 (1985).  
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the 
letter written by Paden into evidence.  
 
For the error in admitting Dixon's statements, the order 
of the Court of Appeals will be reversed and the conviction 
will be vacated.  The case will be remanded to the Court of 
Appeals with direction that it be remanded to the Circuit 
Court for a new trial if the Commonwealth be so advised. 
Vacated, reversed and remanded. 
 
4