Opinion ID: 2570430
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Use of Prior Inconsistent Statements as Substantive Evidence: Sufficiency vs. Reliability.

Text: ¶ 23 After the modernization of Rule 801(d)(1)(A), state and federal case law began to struggle with the issue of the sufficiency of prior inconsistent statements as the sole proof supporting a conviction. Sufficiency of evidence is a determination that depends on the facts specific to a case and addresses the question of whether the evidence supports a conviction such that any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hocevar, 2000 MT 157, ¶ 23, 300 Mont. 167, ¶ 23, 7 P.3d 329, ¶ 23. When a conviction is supported solely by a prior inconsistent statement, a review of the evidence for sufficiency so as to assess whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt inevitably involves a review of the degree of reliability of the prior inconsistent statement. Thus, the reasoning behind using prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence becomes circular: prior inconsistent statements are admissible as substantive evidence because cross examination at trial guarantees reliability, but when considered alone such statements must be reviewed to see if they are reliable enough. A recognition of this quandary is apparent in the fact that since the new rules were enacted, state and federal case law has continually turned to a review of the reliability of prior inconsistent statements. ¶ 24 This paradox was foreshadowed in California v. Green (1970), 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489, a case holding that the use of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Green asserts that if a case rests entirely on a prior inconsistent statement, the defendant would be entitled to a hearing on the reliability of the statement. Green, 399 U.S. at 187, 90 S.Ct. at 1950, n. 20. See also Stanley A. Goldman, Guilt by Intuition: the Insufficiency of Prior Inconsistent Statements to Convict 65 N.C. L.Rev. 1 (1986) (criticizing the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements by questioning the reliability of such statements). While there is precedent establishing that convictions based entirely on unreliable evidence cannot stand, Green, 399 U.S. at 187, 90 S.Ct. at 1950, n. 20 (citations omitted), the Court has not addressed the specific issue of whether a prior inconsistent statement as the sole proof of conviction violates other due process rights. ¶ 25 The Court's later cases indicate that sufficiency of such evidence is completely dependent on its reliability. The Court has held that statements admitted under a residual hearsay exception, rather than a firmly-rooted exception to hearsay, cannot be considered for substantive purposes if the statements do not have adequate indicia of reliability as required under the Confrontation Clause. Idaho v. Wright (1990), 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 passim (holding child's pre-trial statements to doctor regarding sexual abuse were not admissible for substantive use). In contrast, the Court has also held that no reliability hearing is necessary for Confrontation Clause purposes for an out-of-court identification admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(C), Fed.R.Evid., when the person who made the identification is available at trial for cross examination. United States v. Owens (1988), 484 U.S. 554, 560-61, 108 S.Ct. 838, 843, 98 L.Ed.2d 951. See also Ohio v. Roberts (1980), 448 U.S. 56, 70-73, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2541-43, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (holding pre-trial statements admissible as substantive evidence because statements were subject to cross examination when given). ¶ 26 In federal case law, the issue of sufficiency of a prior inconsistent statement alone was first addressed in United States v. Orrico (6th Cir.1979), 599 F.2d 113. In Orrico, a conviction for fraudulent transportation of checks in interstate commerce was reversed based on the rationale that the entire case rested on a prior inconsistent statement and a past recorded recollection which were insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Orrico, 599 F.2d at 118-19. The entire analysis in the case revolves around the questionable reliability of those statements. Orrico, 599 F.2d at 116-17. In contrast, the same circuit found in United States v. Woods (6th Cir.1980), 613 F.2d 629, 637, that the conviction was sufficiently supported by the evidence even though pre-trial testimony before a grand jury apparently was the only direct evidence linking defendant Underwood to the robbery. Compare Ticey v. Peters (7th Cir.1993) 8 F.3d 498, 503-04 (holding on habeas corpus petition that prior inconsistent statements of rape victim were sufficiently reliable as sole support for conviction, even though statements were testified to and paraphrased by the police officer who took statements); United States v. Bahe (D.N.M.1998), 40 F.Supp.2d 1302 (prior inconsistent statement of niece was insufficient to support conviction for sexual abuse). ¶ 27 As criminal prosecution of domestic abuse cases has increased, states are more often dealing with the difficulty of the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements. See State v. Clark (1996), 83 Hawai`i 289, 926 P.2d 194 (holding prior inconsistent statements of domestic abuse victim were sufficient as the sole proof of identity for conviction even though she testified at trial the wounds were self inflicted because she was high on drugs). See also Neal A. Hudders, Note, The Problem of Using Hearsay in Domestic Violence Cases: Is a New Exception the Answer? 49 Duke L.J. 1041 (2000) (analyzing current and potential exceptions to hearsay for domestic violence cases); Peter R. Dworkin, Confronting Your Abuser in Oregon: a New Domestic Violence Hearsay Exception, 37 Willamette L.Rev. 299 (2001) (analyzing constitutionality of Oregon's new hearsay exception that specifically allows substantive admission of domestic abuse reports); Andrea G. Nadel, Use or Admissibility of Prior Inconsistent Statements of Witness as Substantive Evidence of Facts to Which They Relate in Criminal Case-Modern State Cases, 30 A.L.R.4th 414, 1984 WL 263405 (1984). ¶ 28 Our review of state case law indicates that appellate courts have inevitably walked down the path of categorizing particular prior inconsistent statements depending on reliability, in order to determine the sufficiency of evidence. Pennsylvania established a rule similar to Montana's by judicial decision in Commonwealth v. Brady (1986), 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66. This decision has been continually refined and limited to the point that Pennsylvania's rule is now similar to the statutory rule in Hawaii mentioned above. See Commonwealth v. Wilson (1998), 550 Pa. 518, 707 A.2d 1114, 1118 (explaining some of the case law refinements since Brady and holding prior inconsistent statement must be electronically recorded in order to qualify as substantive evidence). ¶ 29 Massachusetts has almost approached a case-by-case analysis of convictions based solely on the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements. Prior inconsistent statements given at a probable cause hearing are sufficient to support a conviction alone, but prior inconsistent statements given at a grand jury must be corroborated. Compare Commonwealth v. Clements (2001), 51 Mass. App.Ct. 508, 747 N.E.2d 682, 687-88 (grand jury testimony corroborated by pretrial photographic identification admitted under 801(d)(1)(C), Mass.R.Evid.), rehearing granted by 434 Mass. 1106, 752 N.E.2d 241 (2001); Commonwealth v. Sineiro (2000), 432 Mass. 735, 740 N.E.2d 602, 609-10 (cross-examined probable cause testimony sufficient alone). New Jersey has adopted a fifteen factor test for reviewing the reliability of a prior inconsistent statement, in addition to its statutory rule. State v. Mancine (1991), 124 N.J. 232, 590 A.2d 1107, 1115. [2] See also R.T.L. v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), 764 So.2d 871 (prior inconsistent statement insufficient alone); Nance v. State (1993), 331 Md. 549, 629 A.2d 633 (prior inconsistent statement sufficient alone if reliable); State v. Robar (1991), 157 Vt. 387, 601 A.2d 1376 (same); People v. Chavies (1999), 234 Mich.App. 274, 593 N.W.2d 655 (prior inconsistent statement may serve as sole basis for conviction; credibility of statement is issue for the jury), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 841, 121 S.Ct. 105, 148 L.Ed.2d 63 (2000); State v. Igoe (N.D.1973), 206 N.W.2d 291 (same). While the approach is different in the various jurisdictions, the effect of the modified rules is to narrow the issue of the sufficiency of evidence, and therefore its reliability, either by requiring corroboration or by constraining the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements for use as substantive evidence in the first place.