Opinion ID: 580302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Codefendant's Hearsay Statement

Text: 9 In a post-arrest statement to police, Soto, Vasquez's codefendant, indicated that the door of one of the safes was open prior to the arrival of the Task Force agents. At trial, the district court allowed this hearsay statement to be admitted into evidence pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3) as a statement against Soto's penal interest. The Government sought to introduce the statement only after Vasquez's attorney suggested during his cross-examination of two agents that the safes were closed and must have been locked when the agents entered the apartment. Vasquez contends that this statement failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3), and that its admission violated the rules of evidence and his Confrontation Clause rights therefore constituting reversible error. We need not address the merits of these claims, because even assuming that admission of Soto's statement was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 10 It is well-established that Vasquez's Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and hearsay claims are subject to harmless error analysis. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); United States v. Williams, 927 F.2d 95, 99 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 307, 116 L.Ed.2d 250 (1991); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 975 (2d Cir.1988). An error committed at trial will be considered harmless if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 11 Here, Soto's statement that one of the safe doors was open was unrelated to, and not inconsistent with, Vasquez's defense. Vasquez testified that he was in the apartment merely as a purchaser of crack, and not as a participant in a drug distribution scheme. The jury could easily have accepted that one of the safes was open and still believed Vasquez's explanation for his presence in the apartment. Indeed, the government did not mention Soto's statement at all during summation, but focused on the substantial evidence of Vasquez's involvement in drug distribution. Upon executing the search warrant, the agents found three crack packaging stations in an apartment fortified with weapons, large quantities of narcotics, and narcotics paraphernalia. Vasquez was one of three individuals found in the apartment at that time. Moreover, the fact that Vasquez had no money contradicted his explanation that he was in the apartment to purchase drugs. The jury plainly had ample grounds upon which to convict Vasquez. Under these circumstances, any error in admitting Soto's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 12