Opinion ID: 2621809
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: statements to the brown sisters

Text: {7} With respect to the statements he made to the Brown sisters, Defendant argues they constitute sufficient evidence to have warranted an instruction on self-defense. We are to look at the evidence from Defendant's point of view: The significance of the difference in viewing circumstances from the standpoint of the defendant alone rather than from the standpoint of a reasonably cautious person is that the jury's consideration of the unique physical and psychological characteristics of an accused allows the jury to judge the reasonableness of the accused's actions against the accused's subjective impressions of the need to use force rather than against those impressions which a jury determines that a hypothetical reasonably cautious person would have under similar circumstances. State v. Leidholm, 334 N.W.2d 811, 818 (N.D. 1983). This indicates that the inquiry should focus on the time of the incident and what a defendant's thoughts might have been at that time (under similar circumstances), not several days later, which is when the statements to the Browns were made. {8} In this analysis of whether the statements to the Browns were slight but adequately substantial evidence, we find useful an analogy to Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) NMRA 2001 on prior consistent statements in order to assess the probative value of the statements in issue. An excellent discussion of that rule was provided in State v. Casaus, 121 N.M. 481, 486-87, 913 P.2d 669, 674-75 (Ct.App.1996): The drafters [of Rule 801(D)(1)(b)], by permitting prior consistent statements to be used to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive as nonhearsay, do so under the premise that these statements, if made before the improper influence or motive is alleged to have originated, are inherently reliable. 4 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 406, at 188 (2d ed.1994) (an impeaching effort that suggests fabrication, influence, or motive makes prior consistent statements relevant only if they were uttered before such corrupting forces came into play); 4 Jack B. Weinstein et al., Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 801(d)(1)(b)[01], at 188-89 (1995) (Evidence that merely shows that the witness said the same thing on other occasions when his motive was the same does not have much probative force, `for the simple reason that mere repetition does not imply veracity.') (quoting United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1351 (7th Cir.... 1979)) ... Thus, if a prior consistent statement is to be classified as nonhearsay as a result of its reliability, it must be made before the alleged motive to fabricate arises to be admissible under the rule. Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence § 801.12, at 752-58 (3d ed.1991). Defendant's point of view becomes less probative with the passage of time, but here not much time had elapsed. Nonetheless, Defendant had a strong motivation to lie to the Brown sisters, and his conclusory statement that he acted in self-defense would not in any event be sufficient to warrant an instruction. See State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727 (describing the state of facts on which a defendant must submit evidence). We conclude their testimony was not an adequate showing to require the giving of an instruction on self-defense.