Opinion ID: 1213091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admissibility of parker's statement to the police

Text: During trial, the court admitted into evidence the testimonies of Mr. and Mrs. Olsen. They testified that the four articles seized by the police during its search of appellant's car were stolen from their apartment and belonged to them. Appellant, in his defense, attempted to introduce into evidence a statement made by Parker to Detective Arnold Takakawa in which Parker claimed ownership of the articles when Takakawa was investigating Parker's involvement in the prior unrelated burglary. The trial court excluded the statement. Appellant claims that the trial court should have allowed into evidence the hearsay statement of Parker because it was a statement against penal interest. In State v. Leong, 51 Haw. 581, 465 P.2d 560 (1970), we held that: [a] declaration against interest is a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule. The requirements for this exception are that the declarant be unavailable; that he had knowledge of the facts concerning the declaration; that it was a declaration against his interest; and that there was no motive to falsify. (Citations omitted.) The rationale for the admission of a declaration against interest is that the declaration is trustworthy and unlikely to be false because one will not make false statements against his interest. (Citations omitted.) Parker's declaration did not meet the requirement as a statement against penal interest. Because he was under investigation of the prior burglary, he had every motive to falsely claim ownership of the articles. The trial court did not commit error in refusing Parker's hearsay statement. Other issues raised on appeal are without merit. Affirmed.