He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify. The court ruled that King was unavailable as a witness, and permitted the State to introduce, in redacted form, the contents of a written statement given to the police by King. In the statement, King confessed that he and defendant entered the motel and committed the robbery. The court ruled that the redacted statement was admissible pursuant to M.R.Evid. The redacted statement was read in evidence by a police officer.
Defendant argues that the court erred in admitting the statement.
Defendant has never challenged the statement on the basis of relevance, but the unusual context of the court's ruling should be noted. Robert King was not on trial. In the present case, however, King's statement, redacted to delete any reference to defendant, was admissible only if it tended to corroborate other evidence of defendant's guilt. Because the statement placed King at the robbery, it provided a measure of circumstantial support for the joint involvement of defendant and King. Once redacted, the King statement no longer implicates defendant and it falls within the hearsay exception.