Opinion ID: 1439456
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements Against Penal Interest

Text: Having determined Johnson's maps do not implicate Honken's rights under the confrontation clause, we now address Honken's argument Johnson's maps were inadmissible as statements against penal interest. Honken contends the maps do not constitute statements against Johnson's penal interest because she drew them in the hopes of aiding her penal interest. We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mendoza, 85 F.3d 1347, 1351 (8th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). Under [Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 804(b)(3), a statement is not excluded as hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and the statement was against the declarant's penal interest. Id. To be admissible as a statement against penal interest, a three-prong test must be satisfied:. . . (1) the declarant [must be] unavailable as a witness, (2) the statement must so far tend to subject the declarant to criminal liability that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true, and (3) corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. Id. (quotations omitted). The first prong is satisfied because Johnson was unavailable to testify at Honken's trial due to Johnson invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Johnson's maps clearly subjected her to criminal liability. By admitting she knew where the victims' bodies were buried, Johnson implicated herself in the murders, or at least in the subsequent cover-up of the murders. No reasonable person would make such a statement unless she believed it to be true. The fact Johnson harbored the delusion that a complete stranger would take the blame for the five murders does not make the maps any less inculpatory. Thus, the second prong is satisfied. Finally, the third prong is satisfied because Johnson did not draw the maps to curry favor with authorities or exonerate herself by shifting the blame to Honken. Instead, Johnson drew the maps in an attempt to have another inmate take the blame for the murders so she and Honken could go free. It was important for the maps to be accurate so the other inmate could credibly take the blame (of course, the maps ultimately led investigators to the victims' graves). The maps satisfy any evidentiary standards of trustworthiness and reliability. We conclude the district court properly admitted Johnson's maps as statements against her penal interest. [14]