Opinion ID: 2361206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statement of LaDonna Murray

Text: At trial, Branstetter sought to introduce a statement of LaDonna in an attempt to discredit K.N.'s testimony by using the statement in cross-examining K.N. K.N. testified that her mother had not participated in her beating, and LaDonna's statement indicated she had. Another statement existed wherein LaDonna denied any participation. In the statement Branstetter sought to introduce, LaDonna did not exculpate Branstetter, but rather indicated she had initiated the beating and then Branstetter joined in. Branstetter asserts the trial court erred when it refused to admit this statement. Branstetter argues more specifically that Ark. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) allows admission of this statement as one against interest. One of the requirements of the rule is that the declarant be unavailable. She was. LaDonna refused to testify by availing herself of her Fifth Amendment rights. However, as noted, LaDonna's statement only admitted her involvement in the beating and did nothing to exonerate Branstetter. This court very recently discussed a statement against interest that incriminated the declarant but did not entirely exculpate him. Cox v. State, 345 Ark. 391, 47 S.W.3d 244 (2001). In Cox, this court questioned the application of the rule where accomplices are involved. Under those circumstances, an admission by one does not exculpate the other. This court found the rule inapplicable, and, for the same reasons, it is inapplicable here. LaDonna's statement did not even attempt to exculpate Branstetter, and, thus, the rule is even less applicable under these facts. Branstetter also argues that even if Rule 804 is not applicable, this exclusion of evidence constituted a mechanical application of the hearsay rule to defeat his due-process rights and right of confrontation depriving him of the ability to put on a defense. There is no issue as to confrontation and opportunity of cross-examination. What Branstetter complains of is if the statement had been admitted, he could have questioned K.N. as to why she said her mother was not involved when her mother admitted she was. Nothing stopped Branstetter from cross-examining K.N. LaDonna did not testify, so the statement could not be used as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach her. We also note that there is at least one other statement wherein LaDonna denied involvement, which means at trial her statements would have, in effect, nullified each other on this issue, and the statements were untrustworthy. There was no abuse of discretion.