Opinion ID: 2234706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: downey's testimony

Text: Castor first argues that Downey's testimony should have been admitted in evidence for its truth, not merely for its impeachment value. Downey testified when called by the defense that Eddy told him while they were in jail together that he (Eddy) had shot Brown. The State, in rebuttal, called Officer Mike Young, who had interviewed Downey. Young testified that Downey had first said Eddy admitted to shooting Brown, but later, Downey changed his story and said that Eddy told Downey he did not shoot Brown but knew who did. Castor argues that this testimony was trustworthy and thus should have been admitted under § 27-803(23) despite the fact that Castor did not notify the State until after trial had begun that she was going to use this testimony. Castor urges this court to change its unbending adherence to the notice requirement under § 27-803(23) and argues for a more flexible approach. Brief for appellant at 18. Castor also claims that the State was not prejudiced by the lack of notice. Eddy's alleged confession in this case is clearly hearsay. See Neb.Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 1995). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the rules of evidence. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 1995). Section 27-803(23) provides that the hearsay rule does not exclude: A statement not specifically covered by any of the ... exceptions [listed in § 27-803] but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact, (b) 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, and (c) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. A statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his or her intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant. Thus, in determining whether a statement is admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, a court considers five factors: a statement's trustworthiness, the materiality of the statement, the probative importance of the statement, the interests of justice, and whether notice was given to an opponent. State v. McBride, 250 Neb. 636, 550 N.W.2d 659 (1996) (analyzing Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-804(2)(e) (Reissue 1995), which is identical to § 27-803(23) except that it requires declarant to be unavailable); State v. Toney, 243 Neb. 237, 498 N.W.2d 544 (1993) (same). We need address only the notice requirement issue here, as our decision on that issue is dispositive. As quoted above, § 27-803(23) requires that in order for a statement to be admitted under the residual exception, the statement's proponent must notify the adverse party of his or her intent to offer the statement, as well as the particulars of the statement, sufficiently in advance of trial to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it. Castor notified the State on February 3, 2000, that she intended to use Downey's testimony. However, the trial in this case actually began on February 1, so the notice Castor provided was during the trial, not in advance of the trial as the rule requires. The plain language of the statute states that notice must be given in advance of the trial, not during trial. Castor, however, argues that the State was not prejudiced because it knew of Eddy's statements to Downey and thus had sufficient notice of their possible use. We have previously rejected this argument in the context of § 27-804(2)(e), which is an identical residual exception applicable when the declarant is unavailable. In State v. Boppre, 234 Neb. 922, 952, 453 N.W.2d 406, 428 (1990), we stated that under § 27-804(2)(e): [I]t is not enough that the adverse party is aware of the unavailable declarant's statement; the proponent of the evidence must provide notice to the adverse party of his intentions to use the statement in order to take advantage of the hearsay exception in § 27-804(2)(e). Because [defendant] did not provide the necessary notice, he cannot take advantage of the exception. Likewise, in State v. Leisy, 207 Neb. 118, 129, 295 N.W.2d 715, 723 (1980), we stated that [t]he giving of such notice is one of the requirements necessary to make such evidence admissible and held that the notice provision in § 27-804(2)(e) is mandatory. We find no principled ground for deciding differently under § 27-803(23). Indeed, we have previously found it to be error to overrule an objection to the introduction of evidence under this exception where the proponent of the evidence has not given notice to the adverse party. See State v. Reed, 201 Neb. 800, 272 N.W.2d 759 (1978). Thus, based on the language of the statute and the prior decisions by this court, we conclude that Downey's testimony was properly excluded as substantive evidence because Castor failed to give the State notice before trial of her intent to use the testimony. Castor argues, however, that under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), failure to allow Downey's testimony for its truth violates her due process rights. In Chambers, the defendant sought to prove that a third party committed the murder for which the defendant was charged. Id. Under Mississippi's voucher rule, the defendant was precluded from cross-examining the third party because the defendant himself had called the third party as a witness. Id. In addition, the defendant was precluded from calling witnesses to testify that the third party had confessed because the statements they would have relayed were hearsay. Id. The Court found that the combination of these circumstances denied the defendant a fair trial. Id. In regard to the hearsay issue, the Court stated that [f]ew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense. 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038. The Court, reasoning that the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to exclude evidence that bore persuasive assurances of trustworthiness and that was critical to the accused's defense, concluded that the exclusion of the third party's statements constituted a violation of traditional and fundamental standards of due process. Id. Given that the Court expressly stated that it was not announcing any new principles of constitutional law and that its holding was limited to the facts and circumstances of that case, there is some question whether Chambers mandates the admission of third-party confessions. We need not decide that question, however, because, in any event, the defendant here has not met the standards the Court used in Chambers v. Mississippi, supra . See State v. West, 437 So.2d 256 (La.1983). In reaching its conclusion, the Court in Chambers stated, In the exercise of this right [to present witnesses in one's defense], the accused, as is required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence. 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038. Section 27-803(23) establishes that as a matter of procedure, the proponent of a statement must notify the adverse party of his or her intent to use the hearsay statement in advance of trial in order for the statement to be admitted under the residual exception. In this case, Castor did not notify the State in advance of trial. She therefore has not complied with the established rule of procedure and cannot now complain of the trial court's exclusion of the testimony as substantive evidence. See Jackson v. State, 284 Ark. 478, 683 S.W.2d 606 (1985) (affirming trial court's exclusion of evidence under Chambers in part because defendant failed to follow established procedure for admitting evidence). The exclusion of the evidence here results from Castor's own failure to comply with a procedural rule, not from the mechanistic application of the rules of evidence. See Chambers v. Mississippi, supra . Because Castor is responsible for the inadmissibility of the evidence, it is difficult to understand how her due process rights could have been violated by the State. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Downey's testimony only for its impeachment value.