COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Fitzpatrick 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

CAMELLIA LOU FRIES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0837-94-4 JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR. 

 JUNE 6, 1995 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 

Dennis L. Hupp, Judge 

 Walter F. Green, IV (Green & O'Donnell, on brief), 

 for appellant. 

 G. Russell Stone, Jr., Assistant Attorney General 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief), 

 for appellee. 

 Camellia Lou Fries, a juvenile, was tried and convicted of 

murdering her mother. Over her objection, she was tried at the 

same trial with Shawn Roadcap, another juvenile, who was being 

tried for the same murder. On this appeal, Fries contends that 

the trial judge erred in admitting as evidence statements that 

Roadcap made to the police prior to trial which were partially 

non-self-inculpatory as to Roadcap. For the reasons that follow, 

we affirm the trial judge's ruling. 

 At a hearing in the juvenile and domestic relations district 

court, Fries was found "guilty of the . . . delinquency charge 

. . . [of] first degree murder" for killing her mother. 

Following Fries' appeal to the circuit court, the Commonwealth 

filed a motion to try jointly Fries, Roadcap, and Fries' sister, 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

all of whom had been found guilty of the same delinquency charge 

of murder for the killing of Fries' mother. Fries and Roadcap 

requested a public hearing pursuant to Code § 16.1-302. Fries' 

sister waived her right to a public trial as permitted by Code 

§ 16.1-302. The trial judge granted the waiver and ordered that 

Fries and Roadcap be tried together. 

 After Fries' request to sever her trial from the trial of 

Roadcap was denied, Fries moved to bar the Commonwealth from 

offering in evidence statements made by Roadcap to the police 

prior to trial. Those statements contained allegations regarding 

Fries and contained information that was both self-inculpatory 

and non-self-inculpatory regarding Roadcap's participation in the 

killing. Fries' attorney argued that although the statements 

were against Roadcap's penal interest, Roadcap had invoked his 

Fifth Amendment right not to testify and was unavailable as a 

witness to testify regarding portions of his statements that 

concerned Fries. Fries' counsel argued that the statements made 

by Roadcap were not reliable. The trial judge denied the motion. 

 Fries argues on this appeal that the decision of the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Williamson v. United States, ___ 

U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 2431 (1994), compels a reversal of the trial 

judge's decision. In Williamson, the Supreme Court held that 

although Rule 804(b)(3) allows in evidence as an exception to the 

hearsay rule statements made against a declarant's penal 

interest, non-self-inculpatory statements cannot be considered to 
- 3 - 

be statements made against a declarant's penal interest even if 

they are contained within a broader narrative that is generally 

self-incriminatory. ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 2435. The 

Court held that non-self-inculpatory statements are unreliable 

and should be excluded as hearsay. Id. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 

2435. 

 Recently, however, in Chandler v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___, 

___ S.E.2d ___ (1995), the Supreme Court of Virginia had the 

opportunity to address the application of Williamson. Although 

the court's decision only summarily addressed Williamson, it 

unambiguously rejected the primary foundation of that opinion and 

held that "Williamson . . . concerned the interpretation of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence, not applicable here." The Supreme 

Court's rationale in Chandler does not permit this Court to apply 

in Virginia the rule announced in Williamson that non-selfinculpatory statements are unreliable and "should [not] be 

treated any differently from other hearsay statements that are 

generally excluded." ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 2435. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's ruling. 

 Affirmed.