Opinion ID: 784134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Court's Exclusion of Hodge's Purported Identifications

Text: 27 Lawrence claims that the district court also deprived him of due process of law because it excluded the videotape of Hodge's response to the array of photographs he viewed on May 25, 2000. Second, he argues that the court erred in excluding Berenice Hodge's testimony about the victim's statements to her on April 23, 2000. In a related claim, Lawrence argues that the court also erred by failing to explain that ruling. Finally, Lawrence argues that the court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him by preventing him from using Berenice Hodge's testimony as impeachment evidence on cross-examination of a government witness. 28 We review the district court's exclusion of evidence for an abuse of discretion just as we reviewed the court's refusal to suppress evidence. In re Merritt Logan, Inc., 901 F.2d at 359. We will address each claim in turn.
29 Lawrence argues that Hodge's response when shown the photo array on May 25 was admissible either as a dying declaration or under the residual hearsay exception. We disagree. 30 A declarant's statement identifying his/her assailant can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule if the declarant believes that he/she is facing imminent death. However, in order for this dying declaration to be admissible, the declarant must have spoken with the consciousness of a swift and certain doom. Shepard v. U.S., 290 U.S. 96, 100, 54 S.Ct. 22, 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933). Here, the district court concluded that Lawrence had not established that either of Hodge's identifications were made while Hodge believed death was imminent. The record supports that finding. Hodge's medical treatment was rigorous and undertaken with the expectation that he would survive. Hodge was never told by medical staff or police that he was going to die. Although Hodge had to realize that he had extremely serious injuries, doctors had been discussing the care he would need following his release from the hospital and the subsequent rehabilitation that everyone thought he would have to undergo. Moreover, when Hodge finally succumbed to his injuries on May 30, he had just recovered from major surgery and appeared on the way to recovery. 31 Moreover, he was shown the first array five days before he died. In addition, it is uncontested that not only did no one tell Hodge he was going to die because his death was not expected, the nursing staff purposely tried to manifest an upbeat attitude around him to help keep his spirits up. Thus, the court correctly concluded that the evidence simply did not allow the foundation necessary to admit Hodge's purported identification of Ogami as a dying declaration. 32 Similarly, the response Hodge gave on May 25 lacks the necessary indicia of credibility to be admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule embodied in Fed.R.Evid. 807. That Rule states: 33 A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, 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. 34 We have stated that [t]he residual hearsay exception is to be used only rarely, and in exceptional circumstances, and is meant to apply only when certain exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness exist and when high degrees of probativeness and necessity are present. Bohler-Uddeholm America, Inc. v. Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79, 112 (3d Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). 35 The district court viewed the videotape and concluded that the blinks and nods Hodge allegedly made in response to the photo array were simply too ambiguous to constitute a meaningful statement. This means that Hodge's response to this array lacked the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness necessary to be equivalent to those categorized in the exceptions set forth in the hearsay exceptions specified in Rules 803 and 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, his response could not meet the requirements embodied in Rule 807. 36 Lawrence devotes a paragraph of his brief arguing that the refusal to admit defense evidence tending to inculpate a third party has been found to be reversible error as long as there is some connection between the suspected third party and the crime with which the defendant is charged. Appellant's Brief at 43. Lawrence cites United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380, 1404-05 (3d Cir.1991); and Pettijohn v. Hall, 599 F.2d 476, 478 (1st Cir.1979) to support that proposition. Both Stevens and Pettijohn held that a district court's refusal to admit a second identification for the factfinder to compare with a prior identification was reversible error. However, it is not at all clear that Hodge was actually identifying his assailant here. The district court correctly concluded that it was just as likely that Hodge was trying to tell police that Ogami, whose photograph was included in the first array he was shown, was at the scene when the shooting occurred. Although it may have been preferable for the court to admit that evidence for the jury's consideration, we can not say that the court abused its discretion in not doing so given the strength of the identifications by Harrigan, Frederiksen and Martin, and the ambiguity of Hodge's response. 37
38 Lawrence also argues that the district court erred in not admitting testimony by Berenice Hodge about the decedent's statements to her the day after the shooting. He claims that the evidence was admissible as an excited utterance. When Berenice Hodge first saw her brother at the hospital, he was having trouble speaking, but he kept repeating Ogami to his sister. When she repeated Ogami back to him, he nodded his head yes. Hodge also said T during this exchange. 39 The district court initially rejected Lawrence's claim of an excited utterance when defense counsel first tried to elicit the testimony during cross-examination of Sergeant Curtis Griffin, asking him if Berenice Hodge identified any suspects during his interview of her. After the government objected, a conference occurred at side bar. R. 774-75A. During that conference the court stated that testimony regarding what the witness told Berenice Hodge was double hearsay and therefore inadmissible. 7 However, defense counsel contended that the statement should be admitted as an excited utterance. The court rejected the argument. Later, defense counsel tried again to admit this evidence during its case-in-chief. However, the court again rejected the claim explaining: An excited utterance would be if [the victim] talked to the [police officer at the scene of the shooting] and said, `So and so shot me.' The court noted that the statement Lawrence was trying to elicit was a statement Hodge made to his sister after he was taken to the hospital. His sister was the first family member to speak with him. 40 We agree that Hodge's statement to his sister was not an excited utterance under Fed.R.Evid. 803(2). That rule allows hearsay to be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule if a declarant makes a statement relating to a startling event while under the stress of excitement caused by the event. However, the proffered statement must be made as a result of and while the declarant's utterance is the direct result of the exciting event. See Fed R. Evid. 803(2), Advisory Committee's Note. The district court believed that too much time elapsed between the shooting and the subsequent statement at the hospital to allow Hodge's mention of Ogami to qualify as an excited utterance. The fact that Hodge waited until he was speaking to a family member to utter the declaration supports the court's conclusion. It strongly suggests that the statement was more the product of deliberation than an overpowering and exciting event. Had the same statement been uttered to the police at the scene under different circumstances, it may well have constituted an excited utterance. However, that is not what happened. Rather, Hodge waited until the following day before he made the disputed declaration. 8 Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit it. 41 It must also be noted that if the court allowed defense counsel to introduce this exchange with Berenice Hodge, the government would have been able to also elicit testimony that Hodge also whispered T in the same exchange that he said Ogami. We fail to see how Ogami can qualify as an excited utterance, but not T. That would open the door to arguing that Hodge was attempting to identify Lawrence. There is evidence that Lawrence is known as Trini, and Tall Boy. Given the totality of the evidence here, the jury may well have concluded that Hodge was referring to the defendant when he uttered T. Accordingly, not only did the district court's ruling not deny Lawrence a fair trial, it is likely that it quite properly closed a door that a skilled prosecutor would otherwise have been likely to walk through. 42
43 Lawrence also insists that the district court deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by excluding any reference to Berenice Hodge's testimony during cross-examination of police officers. Berenice Hodge had told the police that her brother told her about Ogami and T being involved. Lawrence argues that he sought to introduce this evidence to contradict the testimony of other government witnesses that only one person was responsible for the fatal shooting. He argues that this testimony might have changed the jury's mind about key government witnesses' credibility, and it should therefore have been admitted. 44 The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to confront witnesses. Cross-examination is an integral part of that right and concomitantly, it is an important ingredient in the fact-finding process. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). Accordingly, significant restrictions on a defendant's cross-examination of witnesses can amount to a violation of the rights guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038. However, the right to cross-examine is neither absolute nor unbounded. Rather, it is tempered by the practical aspects of conducting a criminal trial, and a reasonable limitation on cross-examination will [therefore] not necessarily violate the Sixth Amendment. 27 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 643.02 (3d ed.2003); see also Chambers, 410 U.S. at 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038. 45 Moreover, the right to cross-examine does not allow a litigant to elicit testimony that is otherwise inadmissible. Thus, hearsay evidence is not purged of those qualities that make it hearsay merely because it is elicited on cross-examination as opposed to direct examination. Fed.R.Evid. 802 bars hearsay testimony from trial unless it fits within one of the recognized exceptions that bear sufficient indicia of reliability to merit the fact-finder's consideration. Here, the district court reasonably limited cross-examination of police officers to prevent them from relating that Berenice Hodge had told them about her brother's purported identification of Ogami. Lawrence wanted to use those statements on cross-examination to develop the existence of other suspects to the shooting and thereby challenge the witnesses' stated belief that a single person was responsible for Hodge's death. We have already explained why the district court did not abuse its discretion in precluding Berenice Hodge from testifying about those statements. Her statements to police officers informing them of what her brother said are inadmissible for all the same reasons. In addition, her testimony about what the victim told her constitutes double hearsay and the court correctly concluded that it was not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. 46