Opinion ID: 1952697
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: On appeal Wright contends that the trial court erred by admitting the prior videotaped out-of-court statement of Singletary because it was based on hearsay. The State argues the trial court properly admitted the evidence. This Court reviews for abuse of discretion the trial court's admission of evidence. [2] We hold that Wright did not prove that Singletary's statement was hearsay and affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. Delaware Rule of Evidence 801(c) states, `Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. [3] Hearsay is inadmissible unless it meets one of the exceptions in the Rules of Evidence or is admissible as a matter of law. [4] [C]ourts generally scrutinize out-of-court statements as to the availability of the speaker, the specificity of the information, the need of the statement in relation to other evidence, its relevancy to the question of guilt and the statement's prejudice to the defendant. [5] The trial court, in analyzing Wright's objection, found that it was difficult to discern whether or not Singletary's statement was hearsay. In referring to Singletary's statement the court stated, He indicates that he knows some of the events of the crime, but states today that his knowledge is based on hearsay. [6] The court was uncertain whether the statement was based on hearsay and decided to allow the jury to evaluate the testimony instead. Specifically the court ruled, The jury can evaluate his credibility based on that testimony as to whether or not he, in fact, is a reliable witness with respect to the events of the murder. [7] The record supports the court's findings. During Wright's cross-examination of Singletary he elicited that portions of Singletary's statement do not deal with what Singletary allegedly heard about the murder. Namely, Singletary talks about identifying various pictures. He also discussed an argument that he witnessed. Thus, although Singletary indicated on the stand that his entire statement was hearsay, that fact remains unclear. Furthermore, even if the statement was hearsay it is not clear that the court erred by admitting it. Singletary was available to testify and was available for cross-examination. In fact, Wright conducted cross-examination and elicited for the jury the fact that Singletary never actually saw the murder occur. It also appeared the State needed the statement because of the fact that the three witnesses, including Singletary, were turncoat. Finally, the trial judge properly concluded that the statement did not cause significant prejudice to Wright because Singletary testified that he never actually saw the murder occur.