Opinion ID: 2492640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the statement bailey gave at the time of his arrest.

Text: ¶ 26. Bailey contends that the trial judge abused his discretion by excluding from evidence Bailey's statement to the police at the time of his arrest and thus denied Bailey the right to present a defense. The statement included an assertion from Bailey that Evans was aiming a gun in my direction. When asked why he shot Evans, Bailey responded that it was out of fear for my own life. ¶ 27. The State filed a pretrial motion in limine that would prohibit the defense from mentioning Bailey's post-arrest statement regarding what Bailey claimed had happened the night of the shooting. At the motion hearing, the State argued that the statement was self-serving and not admissible. In response to the State's motion, Bailey's attorney stated, Your honor, we will contest [the motion], but we will concede that the precedent and the binding authority on this Court supports [the State's argument]. ¶ 28. On appeal, Bailey argues that his statement qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) as a statement against interest. Rule 804(b)(3) states: (b) Hearsay Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: ... (3) Statement Against Interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. There is no dispute that Bailey was an unavailable witness for purposes of the above rule, since Bailey invoked his Fifth Amendment right and did not take the stand. See Jacobs, 870 So.2d at 1207-08. ¶ 29. At the motion hearing in today's case, the trial court heavily relied upon Nicholson ex rel. Gollott v. State, 672 So.2d 744, 754 (Miss.1996), in which this Court stated: [T]his issue concerns not the admission, but the failure to admit a piece of evidence. Gollott wished to have the tape of his confession played at trial, to show the extremely upset and remorseful demeanor he had, in an effort to show he did not intentionally kill Diane, and that it was an accident. It is important to note that the State used no part of the taped interview at the trial, at all. Our case law states that the defendant is barred from introducing a statement made by the defendant immediately after the crime, if it is self-serving, and if the State refuses to use any of it. Tigner v. State, 478 So.2d 293, 296 (Miss.1985); Jones v. State, 342 So.2d 735, 736-37 (Miss.1977). Id. at 754. ¶ 30. The trial court's ruling was correct, but for a different reason. Prior to our adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of a defendant's statement was analyzed under the concept of self-serving statements. Upon adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, those rules now control the admissibility of all evidence, and they say nothing about self-serving statements. Instead, our rules of evidence state that [a]ll relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by [constitutional provisions] or these rules. Miss. R. Evid. 402. So Bailey's statement that he shot Evans out of fear for [his] own life was admissible under Rule 402, unless excluded by some other rule of evidence. In this case, the rule that excludes Bailey's statement is Rule 802, which provides that [h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by law. ¶ 31. So unless Bailey cites an exception to the rule against hearsay that applies, his statement is not admissible. He cites Rule 804(b)(3), which provides in pertinent part that [a] statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. Bailey then argues the trustworthiness of his statement without first telling us how it tended to expose him to criminal liability. Rather than exposing him to criminal liability, Bailey's statement, if true, was his defense to criminal liability. See Robinson v. State, 758 So.2d 480, 487 (Miss.Ct.App. 2000) (statement sought to be admitted was a claim of self-defense, not a statement against interest, and therefore, the statement was not admissible under M.R.E. 804(b)(3)). We agree with the Court of Appeals' sound reasoning on this issue. Thus, we fail to see how Rule 804(b)(3) applies. This argument is without merit.