Opinion ID: 2543459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trustworthiness and Reliability Generally

Text: In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the United States Supreme Court determined that when an out-of-court statement fits into a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the reliability and trustworthiness of that statement can be inferred without more. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531. The Roberts Court held that when an out-of-court statement does not fall into a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the statement must bear indicia of reliability, which is indicated by a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Id. Both this court and the Supreme Court have held that the statement against interest exception is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. Stevens v. People, 29 P.3d 305, 313 (Colo.2001); Lilly, 527 U.S. at 134, 119 S.Ct. 1887. In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), the Court explained that particularized guarantees of trustworthiness must be shown from the totality of the circumstances, but that the relevant circumstances include only those that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief. Wright, 497 U.S. at 819, 110 S.Ct. 3139. The Wright Court went on to state: In other words, if the declarant's truthfulness is so clear from the surrounding circumstances that the test of cross-examination would be of marginal utility, then the hearsay rule does not bar admission of the statement at trial. Id. at 820, 110 S.Ct. 3139. A court may not refer to other evidence at trial when assessing the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Id. at 822, 110 S.Ct. 3139; see also Lilly, 527 U.S at 134-38, 119 S.Ct. 1887. We have adopted the reasoning and conclusions of these Supreme Court cases with regard to our own 804(b)(3) and the Confrontation Clause. Stevens, 29 P.3d at 310 (citing Lilly, Wright, and Roberts ).