Opinion ID: 1191763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Williamson Argument

Text: Because the evidence demonstrated that Fong was not known as Cha-Chi, see supra note 2, defendant has consistently argued that Woods' September 8 statement to Godoy (that Cha-Chi was the third murderer) is admissible hearsay because it exculpates defendant. Defendant maintains that Woods' later statements to Godoy that clarified Cha-Chi and Fong were the same person were not exculpatory as to Fong, were not self-inculpatory as to McCrimmon and Minnitt, and were thus inadmissible under Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994). Defendant's argument misinterprets Williamson. In Williamson, the Supreme Court held that [t]he question under Rule 804(b)(3) is always whether the statement was sufficiently against the declarant's penal interest `that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true'.... 512 U.S. at 606, 114 S.Ct. at 2438 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, according to Williamson, the 804(b)(3) issue is whether the statements we're inculpatory as to McCrimmon or Minnitt, not as to Fong. See State v. Nieto, 186 Ariz. 449, 924 P.2d 453 (App. 1996) (To determine if a statement is truly against interest requires a fact-intensive inquiry of the surrounding circumstances and each declaration must be scrutinized to determine if it is self-inculpatory in light of the totality of circumstances.). Woods' September 8 version of the statements (that the third murderer was Cha-Chi who used to work there), which defendant claimed was admissible, and Woods' later version that Cha-Chi was Martin, Betty Christopher's boyfriend were equally non-self-inculpatory with regard to McCrimmon and Minnitt, the hearsay declarants. Woods' testimony as to the identity of the third murderer was based solely on a conversation Woods had with McCrimmon and Minnitt on the day Woods was released from jail. Defendant maintains that he should have been permitted to introduce some of Woods' descriptions of this conversation but to exclude other descriptions of the same conversation from the same witness. The trial court simply ruled that if defendant introduced some of what McCrimmon and Minnitt told Woods about the third murderer, the state would be permitted to introduce Woods' other statements about what McCrimmon and Minnitt told him in the same conversation. The trial court's decision is the correct approach. See State v. Woratzeck, 134 Ariz. 452, 454, 657 P.2d 865, 867 (1982) (holding defendant opens the door to further inquiry on a topic by introducing that topic in its examination of a witness); State v. Mincey, 130 Ariz. 389, 405, 636 P.2d 637, 653 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1003, 102 S.Ct. 1638, 71 L.Ed.2d 871 (1982) (noting Arizona follows the English or `wide open' rule, wherein cross-examination may extend to all matters covered by direct examination ... and holding defendant opened the door to evidence relating to his selling heroin by mentioning in opening that he was a heroin addict). Defendant attempts to question the credibility of McCrimmon and Minnitt. The reasons for doubting the veracity of McCrimmon and Minnitt arguably support excluding their statements entirely but do not justify admitting only those portions that benefit defendant. For example, defendant contends McCrimmon and Minnitt were friends with Woods, they were blame-shifting, and the statements in question were non-self-inculpatory. However, these same factors apply to Woods' September 8 version of his conversation with McCrimmon and Minnitt, which defendant has consistently maintained is admissible and which defendant himself introduced. Defendant also claims the statement by McCrimmon and Minnitt is internally inconsistent. He points out that they told Woods Cha-Chi was used to gain entrance to the store, which was in the process of closing. Cha-Chi was able to convince the victims to let him in the store because he had worked there and was known to the victims. Defendant claims this statement contradicts other statements by Woods indicating Cha-Chi wore a mask when he entered the store. Defendant ignores the fact that Woods testified that he said Cha-Chi went in masked down or whatever because he, Woods, had simply assumed, without knowing, that Cha-Chi had worn a mask. Testimony does not demonstrate, as defendant contends, that McCrimmon and Minnitt told Woods that Cha-Chi wore a mask. The testimony simply demonstrates that Woods assumed a mask was worn. Had the issue been raised, it may very well be that all of McCrimmon's and Minnitt's statements concerning Cha-Chi would have been held inadmissible. Williamson indicates that only those statements within a confession that are individually self-inculpatory are admissible under Rule 804(b)(3). 512 U.S. at 599, 114 S.Ct. at 2435 (We see no reason why collateral statements, ... even ones that are neutral as to interest, ... should be treated any differently from other hearsay statements that are generally excluded.). Cf. State v. Daniel, 169 Ariz. 73, 74, 817 P.2d 18, 19 (App. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1121, 112 S.Ct. 1243, 117 L.Ed.2d 475 (1992) (In short it was not necessarily against [declarant's] penal interest to inculpate appellant, and he may have believed it would further his own interest by creating the possibility of a `deal' with police.). However, once defendant made the tactical decision to introduce some of Woods' testimony about the August conversation, he could not simultaneously preclude the state from introducing other evidence of that same conversation. Rather than have the state bring out the challenged portion, defendant sought to draw the sting by bringing it in himself. Nor will we second-guess trial counsel's tactical decision to introduce evidence that the murderer was Cha-Chi, even at the expense of opening the door to Woods' later statements. Fingerprint evidence and other testimony connected defendant to the crime. It is understandable that defense counsel would want to raise the issue of whether Cha-Chi, a person other than Fong, committed the murders, even at the expense of other evidence indicating that Cha-Chi was Fong. Having chosen a strategy which brought into issue portions of McCrimmon's and Minnitt's statements to Woods, defendant cannot complain that the court should have precluded the state from introducing additional portions of those same statements.