Opinion ID: 1204500
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Belser's Testimony

Text: Appellant next contends that the trial court erred by excluding Wendell Belser's testimony that Willie M. had admitted to the murder. Appellant argues that Willie's alleged admission of guilt, although hearsay, is admissible as a statement against penal interest. We disagree that this exception to the hearsay rule is applicable to this case. In State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992), we addressed the admissibility of out-of-court statements made against the declarant's penal interest offered to exculpate the accused. We now hold out-of-court statements made by an unavailable declarant are admissible in both civil and criminal trials. However, if offered to exculpate the accused in a criminal trial, it is admissible only if corroborating evidence clearly indicates the trustworthiness of the statement. We note this rule is in accord with the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(3). 306 S.C. at 529-530, 413 S.E.2d at 38 (emphasis added). [5] Belser's testimony fails the Doctor test in two important respects. First, the declarant in this case, Willie, was available to testify. See State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 59 S.E.2d 168, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 850, 71 S.Ct. 78, 95 L.Ed. 623 (1950) (witness who is absent from the jurisdiction and cannot be found is unavailable); State v. Rogers, 101 S.C. 280, 85 S.E. 636 (1915) (unavailability includes instances where the declarant is dead, insane, beyond seas, or where the declarant has been kept away by the contrivance of the opposing party); Fed. R.Evid. 804(a) (federal rules' definition of unavailability adopted by this Court in Rule 804(a), SCRE); Doctor, supra (declarants made unavailable by their assertion of their privilege against self-incrimination). Willie testified during the in camera hearing and was present and ready to testify at the trial. As stated above, the trial court offered to call Willie as a court's witness, but Appellant declined. Moreover, Willie did not exercise any fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Second, no corroborating evidence existed which clearly indicated the trustworthiness of Willie's statement against penal interest. On the contrary, the evidence presented during the in camera hearing severely undermined that statement's trustworthiness. Belser admitted that he felt Willie had wrongly put the blame on him for crimes actually committed by Willie. This statement suggested that Belser had a possible motive for attributing Chandler's murder to Willie. Belser also stated that when Willie confessed to the murder, he felt Willie was only joking. Indeed, Willie himself admitted telling at least three different versions of his story at one time or another. The only potential corroboration of Belser's testimony proffered by Appellant was itself inadmissible: a witness who would testify that on the night of Chandler's murder, Willie had attempted to sell this witness a .22 caliber pistol. The trial court excluded this testimony, and Appellant argues that the court erred in so doing. We disagree. The proffered witness was to testify to an out-of-court statement, made by Willie, offered in court to prove that Willie was the perpetrator of Chandler's murder. As this out-of-court statement was hearsay, it was properly excluded. See State v. Brown, 451 S.E.2d 888 (S.C.1994) (definition of hearsay). Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED. FINNEY, C.J., TOAL and MOORE, JJ., and GEORGE T. GREGORY, Jr., Acting Associate Justice, concur.