Opinion ID: 2446341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sixth Amendment Considerations

Text: The foundational requirement that the witness indicate whether or not the prior statement is true is one reason why the substantive operation of section 3507 does not violate the Sixth Amendment. In Ray, we held that the declarant must testify about whether or not the prior statement is truthful because, as Johnson recognized, cross-examination plays an essential role in an accused's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness against him. [13] Therefore, in Johnson we held that the jury or trier of fact must assess the declarant's credibility on the witness stand in the light of all the circumstances presented, including any claim by the witness denying the prior statement, or denying memory of the prior statement or operating events, or changing his [or her] report of the facts. [14] In Johnson, we adoptedand have since followeda case-by-case approach in determining whether a prior statement has been admitted into evidence under section 3507 in violation of an accused's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Sixth Amendment requires an entirely proper foundation, if the prior statement of a witness is to be admitted under section 3507 as independent substantive evidence against an accused. This Court has consistently and unequivocally held a witness' statement may be introduced only if the two-part foundation is first established: the witness testifies about both the events and whether or not they are true.  [15] Accordingly, in Ray we held that in order to conform to the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of an accused's right to confront witnesses against him, the [witness] must also be subject to cross-examination on the content of the statement as well as its truthfulness.  [16] In Blake's case, the State concedes that none of the five 3507 witnesses was asked whether or not their prior statements were true. Therefore, the trial judge erroneously permitted the State to rely upon section 3507 to introduce the prior out-of-court statements from five crucial witnesses even though the State did not lay the proper foundation. The erroneous admission of the five witnesses' statements under section 3507 without a proper foundation requires Blake's convictions to be reversed unless those errors were harmless.