Opinion ID: 2638538
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statement of Jason Thornwall

Text: ¶ 18 After defendant's trial, Russell Thornwall's brother, Jason, contacted defense counsel to discuss the case. Jason said that Russell had spoken to him about the shooting and admitted to being the shooter. According to Jason, Russell stated that he felt bad that Pete [Montoya] was locked up, when he (Russell) was the one that did it. ¶ 19 This statement, though hearsay, meets the initial requirements of the statement against interest exception. Russell Thornwall's death prior to defendant's trial renders him unavailable under the evidentiary rule, and the statement is plainly against his penal interest. See Utah R. Evid. 804(a)(4), (b)(3). However, rule 804 further requires 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. Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(3). ¶ 20 This requirement, which attaches to third-party confessions in a criminal case, renders defendant's proffered evidence inadmissible since defendant has failed to produce any corroborating circumstances that clearly demonstrate the trustworthiness of Jason Thornwall's statement. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine circumstances under which this statement would be less trustworthy. While it is conceivable that Jason Thornwall, out of a sense of familial duty, refrained from divulging Russell's alleged admissions during Russell's lifetime, he had ample opportunity to come forward during the four months after Russell's death and prior to defendant's trial, but chose not to do so. Instead, he waited some fourteen months after Russell purportedly made the admissions and did not reveal the information until well after Russell's close friend had been arrested, tried, and convicted of the crime. Defendant has offered no indicia of reliability in connection with this statement to recommend its admissibility. Consequently, this statement, like that of the confidential witness, fails to satisfy any exception to the rule against hearsay. ¶ 21 Because both witnesses' statements constitute inadmissible hearsay, this newly discovered evidence would be incapable of effecting a different outcome if the case were retried. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.