Opinion ID: 1952083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: R.E. 803(5) Recorded Recollection

Text: D.R.E. 803(5) is an exception to the hearsay rule. It permits the admission into evidence of the recorded recollection of a witness if certain conditions are met. See 5 WEINSTEIN'S FEDERAL EVIDENCE §§ 803.10[1]-803.10[6] (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 1997). D.R.E. 803(5) provides that a memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately, which is shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in his memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly, will not be excluded by the hearsay rule. D.R.E. 803(5). Two rationales justify admission of recorded recollection despite the hearsay rule. 5 WEINSTEIN'S FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 803.10[1]. First, use of the memorandum is necessary because the witness is `unavailable' as a result of the witness's lack of memory of the event. Id. Second, a contemporaneous record is inherently superior to a later recollection subject to the fallibility of human memory. Id.; see GRAHAM C. LILLY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF EVIDENCE § 7.15 (3d ed. 1996) (Recorded Recollection: Rationale and Application). The Comment to D.R.E. 803 further explains that Rule 803(5) should be read more broadly than its literal language. A recorded statement should qualify for admission even if it was recorded by another party if it appears that the statement does in fact reflect the prior knowledge of the witness. D.R.E. 803 cmt. (emphasis added). In this case, the videotape was an accurate record of Lehman's statement to Detective Williams. The videotape was made at a time when Lehman's conversations with Flonnory were fresh in Lehman's mind. Thus, the only missing predicate for the admissibility of the videotape under D.R.E. 803(5) was the requirement that the witness have insufficient recollection. The Superior Court held that Demby had not satisfied the requirements for admissibility of the videotape under D.R.E. 803(5). Notwithstanding the commentary to D.R.E. 803(5), the Superior Court refused to construe the rule broadly. The Superior Court concluded that the defense had not satisfied the insufficient recollection requirement because Lehman's refusal to testify did not constitute a showing of insufficient recollection. Demby contends that Lehman's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right was a legal bar to his ability to recall the videotaped statements on the witness stand. Thus, according to Demby, it constituted a sufficient predicate for invoking the recorded recollection exception to the hearsay rule set forth in D.R.E. 803(5). It is not necessary to decide that issue in this appeal. Instead, we hold that Lehman's videotaped statement was admissible pursuant to Demby's alternative reliance upon the residual hearsay exception of D.R.E. 803(24). The Delaware residual hearsay exception provides that a statement not specifically covered by any of the other exceptions in D.R.E. 803 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness will not be excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that: (A) [t]he 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. D.R.E. 803(24); see GRAHAM C. LILLY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF EVIDENCE § 7.28, at 346-54 (Change Through Evolution and the Residual Hearsay Exceptions). These 803(24) requirements were met in the case sub judice. See Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 166, 115 S.Ct. 696, 705, 130 L.Ed.2d 574 (1995). [6] First, the videotaped statement was offered as evidence of a material fact: that Flonnory, not Demby, killed Brown. Second, the videotaped statement was more probative on that point than any other evidence that could be procured by Demby because Lehman and Flonnory, who were involved in the alleged statement, both invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege at trial. Third, the purpose of the Delaware Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice would be served by the admission of that statement on the videotape into evidence at Demby's trial. The United States Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973); see Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97, 99 S.Ct. 2150, 2151-2152, 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979). Demby properly relies upon D.R.E. 803(24) to avoid a mechanistic application of the hearsay rule that concerned the Supreme Court in Chambers and Green. The videotape of Lehman's pretrial statement to the police was admissible defense evidence.