Opinion ID: 1954208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Probative Value: Relative Necessity

Text: As the advisory committee's note to Fed.R.Evid. 804(b) states: The [residual exception to the hearsay] rule expresses preferences: testimony given on the stand in person is preferred over hearsay, and hearsay, if of the specified quality, is preferred over complete loss of the evidence of the declarant. Consequently, in addition to a statement's possessing equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, Rule 804(2)(e)(ii) requires that the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts. However, the expression in Rule 804(2)(e)(ii) that a statement be more probative... than any other evidence which might be reasonably procured is characterized as a general requirement of necessity rather than a strict requirement that the statement be essential to a proponent's case; for example, see, United States v. Vretta, 790 F.2d 651 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 851, 107 S.Ct. 179, 93 L.Ed.2d 115 (hearsay evidence was the most probative evidence because the hearsay evidence was necessary to complete a pattern of criminal conduct which might not otherwise be clearly established), and United States v. Boulahanis, 677 F.2d 586 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1016, 103 S.Ct. 375, 74 L.Ed.2d 509 (the residual exception to the hearsay rule does not require that hearsay evidence must be essential to a case, but only that the hearsay evidence be the most probative evidence reasonably available on a material issue). On one hand, some of Smith's statements to Gray were unduplicated in Carl Washington's testimony. For instance, Smith stated that apparently someone at the shooting was attempting to inculpate William Toney in Sherrod's death and that William Toney was not the guy that did it. He's their uncle, which might be interpreted that Terrance and Troy Toney were actually culprits in the killing. On the other hand, because some of Smith's out-of-court statements were introduced into evidence through Washington's testimony, some of Smith's statements sought to be introduced through Gray's testimony might be cumulative. `Cumulative evidence' means `tending to prove the same point to which other evidence has been offered.' State v. Coleman, 239 Neb. 800, 814, 478 N.W.2d 349, 358 (1992). However, as the court observed in U.S. v. Shaw, 824 F.2d 601, 610 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 1068, 108 S.Ct. 1033, 98 L.Ed.2d 997 (1988): `[E]ven though the evidence may be somewhat cumulative, it may be important in evaluating other evidence and arriving at the truth so that the more probative requirement can not be interpreted with cast iron rigidity.' (Quoting 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 803(24)[01] (1985).) On cross-examination of Washington and the three young women, the State laid a foundation to impeach those witnesses by calling into question their veracity and indicating that those defense witnesses were unworthy of belief. For example, the State implied that Washington and Melissa Jones had supplied misinformation or even lied to the police. Regarding Latonya and Tanika Johnson, the prosecutor injected the innuendo that these women were biased in favor of William Toney to the extent that they would distort events surrounding Sherrod's death, or, as some might say euphemistically, the truth would be severely disadvantaged by their testimony. Regarding those defense witnesses who may have been impeached in the jury's eyes, Smith's statements to Gray might rehabilitate those witnesses or corroborate their testimony which the State aimed to discredit. In summary, the fact that other testimony was offered on similar subjects expressed in Smith's statements to Gray did not prevent admissibility of Smith's statements offered under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. Consequently, Smith's statements to Gray would supply not only credible substantive evidence on the material issue of Toney's guilt, but would also serve to restore or preserve credibility for those witnesses whose veracity was assailed on cross-examination by the State.