Opinion ID: 2326863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admissibility of the Out-of-court Statement

Text: Page next contends that the trial judge erroneously admitted Kim Still's out-of-court statement because it was involuntarily given and unnecessarily cumulative. The trial judge conducted a Getz [44] analysis and determined that the evidence was admissible to show Page's motive, intent, preparation, plan and knowledge in Reinford's murder. Concerning the admissibility of the statement, the trial judge allowed for voir dire of Still and reviewed the video itself. Still testified that her statement was voluntary. After viewing the video and hearing the testimony, the trial judge stated: I think if you look at the cold antiseptic record, you may get a different feeling, but when you review the tape-recording and how she was treated by the police officers during the course of the interview, I cannot conclude that she was in any way coerced. She certainly was urged to come clean, to tell them more than she was initially willing to reveal. They used police tactics to try and get her to do that, but not in my opinion tactics that overbore her willingness to testify truthfully or her voluntariness. And I think under the circumstances, in light of the totality of the circumstances, particularly in view of the tape, as I reviewed it, I think the statement can come in, and that it is voluntary. Determining whether a statement was voluntarily given requires a careful evaluation of all the circumstances of the interrogation. [45] After considering the video and Still's testimony, the trial judge determined that Still's statement was given voluntarily. [46] Still's motives for speaking with the police were clearly in issue and her out-of-court statement was relevant to that issue and her credibility. We find no plain error and no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in admitting this evidence pursuant to 11 Del. C. § 3507. [47]