Opinion ID: 1404841
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issues related to Lucero's testimony

Text: {17} Defendants concede that they failed to object at trial to the admission of Lucero's testimony on the grounds that the immunity agreement was impermissibly coercive and therefore violated Defendants' due process rights. Because Defendants failed to preserve this question for review, we will reverse on this issue only if the question of guilt is so doubtful that to affirm the conviction would shock the conscience. State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662, 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991). {18} [A] defendant is denied a fair trial if the prosecution's case depends substantially upon accomplice testimony and the accomplice witness is placed, either by the prosecution or the court, under a strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion. People v. Medina, 41 Cal.App.3d 438, 116 Cal.Rptr. 133, 145 (Ct.App.1974), quoted in part in State v. Zinn, 106 N.M. 544, 548, 746 P.2d 650, 654 (1987). [T]he primary purpose of excluding coerced testimony of third parties is to assure the reliability of the trial proceedings. . . . People v. Badgett, 10 Cal.4th 330, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d 877, 886 (1995) (en banc). [T]he burden of proving improper coercion is upon the defendant. 10 Cal.4th 330, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d 877, 887. {19} In New Mexico, we have said that an immunity agreement must not require the accomplice to return a conviction or testify in a certain fashion. Zinn, 106 N.M. at 548, 746 P.2d at 654. [T]he principal requirement for the validity of an immunity agreement is that the accomplice testify truthfully; likewise, absent an agreement that induces an accomplice to testify in a certain fashion, the testimony of an accomplice goes to credibility, not to admissibility. Id. (citation omitted). {20} The agreement in this case required Lucero to give complete and truthful statements of all facts known to him regarding the murder of [Jerol Younger] as represented by his attorney and set forth in paragraphs 1 through 11 [of the agreement]. Defendants argue that this required Lucero to testify in conformity with the facts as the State understood them through their investigation and his attorney's representations. While it is possible to interpret this language as Defendants arguethat is, as compelling Lucero to testify to a particular story, whether truthful or notthe record supports a conclusion that the prosecutor did not intend to compel Lucero to testify other than truthfully and that Lucero understood he was to testify truthfully.
{21} First, Lucero stated on direct examination that he understood that his agreement was to tell the truth: Q: Tell us what your understanding of the immunity agreement is. A: It [sic] I come forth, cooperate, tell the truth to the best of my knowledge, basically cooperate andbasically just tell the truth to the best of my knowledge. Q: If you tell the truth to the best of your knowledge, is it your understanding that no charges are going to be brought against you? A: Correct. This line of questioning indicates that both the State and Lucero understood that his only obligation under the agreement was to be truthful and cooperative. Additionally, counsel for Smith elicited an affirmative response from Lucero on the following question on cross-examination: Meaning [by transactional immunity] that for the whole incident, you have no exposure, as long as you testify truthfully and do whatever they say, right? Finally, counsel for Defendant Brown stated in closing arguments that Lucero's a man given total immunity from prosecution. All he has to do is tell you the truth. But what he does is give you two or three versions of what occurred. (Emphasis added.) Under such circumstances, Defendants cannot realistically contend that Lucero was compelled by the State to testify to any particular version of facts. Lucero's prior consistent statement to Satomba, made absent any governmental influence, supports the conclusion that Lucero's testimony was not sufficiently unreliable to deny Defendants a fair trial.
{22} The California Supreme Court, the opinions of which this Court cited with approval in Zinn, has allowed the testimony of accomplice witnesses under similar circumstances. In People v. DeSantis, 2 Cal.4th 1198, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210, 1220-21 (1992) (en banc), an accomplice, Masse, testified against the defendant after Masse's own conviction and sentencing in the hope of being resentenced to a lighter sentence. The defendant objected to Masse's testifying prior to any resentencing resulting from his agreement with the State. Id. In affirming the district court's decision to allow the testimony, the Court stated, Notwithstanding defendant's efforts to portray the agreement as impermissibly tainted because Masse asserted that he expected to have to testify in conformity with his prior statement, the record elsewhere establishes that Masse meant by his assertion that his testimony at trial would have to conform to that given in his tape-recorded statement because both were true. Masse declared repeatedly that his duty under the agreement was to be truthful and give a complete account of the facts, and that if he did so the sentencing court might reduce his sentence. That was also his interviewers' understanding.. . . In sum, though the bargain obviously contained a . . . degree of compulsion [of the type] inherent in any plea agreement or grant of immunity, [ People v. Morris, 53 Cal.3d 152, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949 (1991)], from Masse's perspective the degree of compulsion was not overwhelming, and more important, the only demand Masse understood the agreement made of him was to tell the truth. Such a bargain did not make the trial fundamentally unfair, and hence did not offend defendant's due process rights. 2 Cal.4th 1198, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210, 1221. {23} Similarly, in Badgett, the accomplice received a letter from the prosecution giving her immunity should she testify under oath to these same statements. Badgett, 41 Cal. Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d at 894 (emphasis omitted). The Court concluded that these same statements merely referred to new testimony and not that she remain consistent. 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d at 895. More importantly for this case, however, the Court determined that, even if the statement created such a condition, the consistency requirement did not continue in effect. At the ensuing preliminary hearings, there was no further mention of the consistency requirement when the immunity agreement was discussed. 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d at 896. In fact, in the trial court, the witness testified repeatedly that her understanding of her immunity agreement was that she would get immunity for the juvenile charges formerly pending against her if she would agree to testify truthfully in court. 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d at 895. If the immunity agreement in this case had conditioned [the accomplice's] immunity on an understanding that she would testify at trial consistently with her previous statements to the police, we would conclude that the trial court erred in rejecting the defense motion to exclude her testimony. Our review of the record, however, persuades us that although, as defendants claim, there was some mention of consistency in the initial understanding with respect to immunity at [the accomplice's] juvenile court detention hearing, the agreement under which she actually testified did not contain such a condition. It is the latter agreement, of course, that is determinative of defendants' claim. 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d at 893.
{24} Lucero understood the agreement to require him only to tell the truth. Defendants did not elicit anything to the contrary on cross-examination. In fact, it appears that Defendants' counsel understood the agreement in a similar manner at trial. Further, Defendants objected to the introduction of the agreement into evidence. Thus, any lack of information the jury may have had to weigh the credibility of Lucero for purposes of coercion resulted from Defendants' actions. We conclude that this testimony was not inherently unreliable, that Lucero's credibility was properly left to the jury, and that the immunity agreement was not coercive. See, e.g., People v. Deltejo, 166 A.D.2d 317, 560 N.Y.S.2d 778, 779 (App.Div. 1990). Therefore, the admission of Lucero's testimony does not amount to fundamental error.
{25} Defendant Smith argues that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine Lucero regarding prior arrests; specifically, Smith argues he should have been allowed to question Lucero about his attempts to exculpate himself from the criminal conduct for which he was arrested. [T]he standard of review for limitations on cross-examination is abuse of discretion. State v. Brown, 1997-NMSC-029, ¶ 18, 123 N.M. 413, 941 P.2d 494, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 426, 139 L.Ed.2d 327 (1997). We are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion here. {26} Smith asked the trial court to admit evidence of Lucero's two juvenile arrests and one adult arrest, arguing that the arrests and Lucero's response to them were admissible under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA 1998 and Rule 11-405(B) NMRA 1998. Smith further argued that Lucero responded to each of his arrests by blaming others for the criminal act, just as he was doing here, and therefore, he had a pattern of exculpating himself by pointing the blame at others. The trial court disagreed, finding that the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value. {27} On appeal, Smith contends that the court prevented him from conducting effective cross-examination. We disagree. Smith cross-examined Lucero on each aspect of his testimony. He questioned Lucero regarding his immunity agreement, his decision to tell his story to police, his choice of attorneys, his relationship with Younger and Defendants, and his decision to leave the state. Defendant Smith's argument that he was unable to test Lucero's credibility has no merit. We do not agree that the additional information regarding his previous arrests, none of which resulted in a conviction, would have substantially altered the cross-examination or the result of the trial.
{28} Defendants claim the trial court erred in admitting two paragraphs of a stipulation to which they objected. Karen Thomas, who was an undercover narcotics investigator for Bemalillo County at the time of Younger's murder, was unavailable at the time of trial due to illness. Therefore, the State and the defense, who sought Thomas' testimony as part of their defense, agreed to a stipulation regarding the content of her testimony. The defense stated, [W]e agreed to enter into a stipulation with the Government as to what her testimony would have been had she been here. (Emphasis added). Defendants noted for the record aspects of Thomas' testimony that the court would not allow into the trial. The court then asked, With that understanding, [were] the State and Defendantobjection still on the recordable to come to a stipulation as to what Ms. Thomas' testimony would be with those caveats? Defense counsel acknowledged that they had agreed on a ten point stipulation, stating that they did not agree to paragraphs nine and ten of the stipulation, which the court noted. Those two points were that Thomas could not connect Younger and Lucero and was unaware of a person named Frank Lucero during her undercover narcotics investigation. {29} This Court has held that a stipulation by defense counsel to the contents of a deposition is not admissible at trial when it violates the defendant's right to confrontation and cross-examination. Millican v. State, 91 N.M. 792, 793, 581 P.2d 1287, 1288 (1978). In Millican, defense counsel did not stipulate to the truthfulness of the deponent's statements, but rather stipulated that the deponent had made the statements. Id. at 792, 581 P.2d at 1287. Millican was unable to cross-examine effectively or otherwise challenge the deponent's statement. Id. at 793, 581 P.2d at 1288. We held that this violated his sixth amendment rights, and reversed and remanded for a new trial. Id. Millican does not control this case. The witness in question was a defense witness, who would not be subject to cross-examination by Defendants. [1] {30} We conclude no error occurred in this case. Defendants sought to have Thomas' testimony admitted into the trial rather than forgo having her testimony at all. Defendants cannot expect that they would be able to present Thomas' testimony in the form of a stipulation without the State bringing out in the stipulation how they would expect Thomas to testify on cross-examination. We agree with the State's contention that Defendants accepted paragraphs nine and ten of the stipulation in order to gain the first eight paragraphs of the stipulation.
{31} At trial, Satomba testified about Lucero's statement to her regarding the murder. The State argues that her testimony was admissible under the prior consistent statement rule. Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b) NMRA 1998. An out-of-court statement made by a witness who testifies at trial is not hearsay if it is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Rule 11-801(D)(1)(b). The statement must be made before a motive to fabricate arises. [O]nly those statements made before the motive originated are nonhearsay and therefore admissible. Casaus, 1996-NMCA-031, ¶ 18, 121 N.M. 481, 913 P.2d 669; accord Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 66, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996. {32} Defendants contend that Lucero's motive to falsify arose before he told Satomba what happened and, therefore, under Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 115 S.Ct. 696, 130 L.Ed.2d 574 (1995), and State v. Casaus, 1996-NMCA-031, 121 N.M. 481, 913 P.2d 669, the testimony should not have been admitted. We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will reverse only if its admission is against logic and is `clearly untenable or not justified by reason.' See State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 770, 887 P.2d 756, 764 (1994) (quoting State v. Litteral, 110 N.M. 138, 141, 793 P.2d 268, 271 (1990)). The question of when a motive to lie arises is a question the trial court answers, reviewable by an appellate court under the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 65, 123 N.M. 778, 945 P.2d 996. {33} At trial, when Defendants cross-examined Lucero, they pursued two different lines of questioning to establish that Lucero had the motive to lie prior to the statement he made to Satomba. First, Defendants questioned whether Lucero lied to protect himself from prosecution and gain an immunity deal. Defendants asked Lucero in cross-examination, And, in order to avoid that time [in jail], you made this deal with. . . the District Attorney's Office, right?. . . [T]his is what's called the immunity, right? Defendants then asked Lucero about the details of the murder and implied that he was directly involved in the murder: Q: You've never veered from your position that you're an innocent bystander to the death of Jerol Younger, right? A: No. Q: Why is it that you need immunity? A: Because I drove the BMW, and I also drove the car for them to dispose of the body. Q: Well, you were innocent, though, right? You didn't do anything wrong? {34} The State introduced Satomba's testimony that Lucero had told her the same story he told at trial in order to rebut Defendants' implication that Lucero lied to protect himself. Defendants objected to the introduction of this evidence, arguing that Lucero had a motive to fabricate. Defendants argued at trial that, despite their cross-examination challenging Lucero's credibility, his statements to Satomba should not have been admitted since he had a motive to lie in 1992, before he told Satomba his story. In a bench conference, Defendants argued that the motive to fabricate arises at the time of the witness['], Lucero['s] participation in the murder. However, the court responded, I'm finding, based on the cross-examination done by both [of] you . . . that you attempted to show that the basis for him beingor the motive for him giving testimony here could be to take advantage of the offer of the State. Therefore, the court found Lucero's motive arose in 1994, when he was in protective custody in California, facing murder charges.
{35} Defendants argue that Lucero's actions in 1992 indicate his motive to lie. According to defense witnesses Denise Purcell-Abeyta and Matilda Gonzales, he began hiding from the police in 1992, and acted strangely from then forward. The State responds that his actions are explainable; they argue his actions arose from fear of those who committed the murder, or fear of being held responsible for a murder he did not commit. {36} The State argues that to follow Defendants' argument would be to eliminate the admission of any prior consistent statements. It may be argued that a declarant whom a defendant accuses of being involved in the crime and who witnesses that crime may possess a motive to fabricate as soon as the crime takes place because he or she fears prosecution. We cannot so conclude without eviscerating the rule. While we recognize that a declarant may have a motive to lie immediately following the crime, due to the declarant's involvement in the crime, failure to report the crime, and fear of prosecution, such a conclusion must necessarily be a fact-based inquiry. The mere witnessing of a crime does not give rise to a presumption or conclusion that a motive to fabricate existed at the time of the crime. A defendant must elicit more concrete testimony from the declarant to establish a motive to lie. {37} Here, Defendants have elicited testimony from a witness regarding Lucero's actions immediately following the murder, in 1992. Purcell-Abeyta testified that, in 1992, Lucero came to her and asked to stay with her because he was in trouble. After she questioned him regarding the trouble, he said he killed Younger, to whom he owed money. She also testified that Lucero became fearful of the police at this time. In addition, in October of 1992, the police searched his home in Albuquerque, where they found a hammerhead, plastic garbage bags, duct tape, and cords, all of which could have been used in the murder of Younger. Defendants argue that this evidence, adduced at trial, showed that Lucero had a powerful motive to lie because of his involvement in the murder and the police suspicion that had begun to focus on him. We agree. {38} Lucero allegedly admitted he committed the crime in 1992, he became fearful of the police and sought to hide from them, and police began to suspect his involvement and searched the remains of his home. This evidence demonstrated that he had a motive to lieto protect himselfin October of 1992. This pre-dated his arrival in California, where he stayed with Satomba, by nearly one year. He told Satomba the story he told at trial several days after his arrival. Satomba's testimony would not have been admissible under Casaus as substantive evidence because she heard the statements after Lucero's motive to lie arose. However, we conclude that Satomba's testimony was properly admitted as rehabilitative evidence.
{39} To hold that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Satomba's testimony regarding Lucero's story, this Court must find that the trial court acted in an `obviously erroneous, arbitrary or unwarranted manner.' State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009, ¶ 33, 125 N.M. 66, 957 P.2d 51 (quoting State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 170, 861 P.2d 192, 206 (1993)). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Satomba's testimony because of other testimony offered at trial. {40} In Tome, the United States Supreme Court focused on the admission of prior consistent statements pursuant to Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Tome, 513 U.S. at 156, 115 S.Ct. 696. The Court intimate[d] no view . . . concerning the admissibility of any of [the declarant's] out-of-court statements under [Rule 803(24)], or any other evidentiary principle. Id. at 166, 115 S.Ct. 696. Additionally, the Court stated that its holding is confined to the requirements for admission under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). Id. at 167, 115 S.Ct. 696. {41} The Fourth Circuit has relied on this language from Tome to distinguish the introduction of prior consistent statements for purposes of rehabilitation, as opposed to use as substantive evidence. United States v. Ellis, 121 F.3d 908, 920 n. 16 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 738, 139 L.Ed.2d 674 (1998). Because Rule 801(d) identifies certain out-of-court statements that are admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted, in other words, for substantive purposes, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that Rule 801(d) and the United States Supreme Court opinion in Tome do not control the introduction of prior consistent statements for the sole purpose of rehabilitating a witness. Id. at 919-21. {42} The Fourth Circuit's interpretation is fairly consistent with the overall reasoning of Tome, though there is dicta in Tome indicating that the majority had a different understanding of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) than the Fourth Circuit. The United States Supreme Court relied heavily on two sources of authority in its interpretation of Rule 801(d)(1)(B): (1) the common law; and (2) the advisory notes for the Federal Rules of Evidence. Tome, 513 U.S. at 159-60, 115 S.Ct. 696. The Court determined that the premotive requirement existed at common law and that the rules committee intended to adopt the common law understanding of prior consistent statements. Id. at 160, 115 S.Ct. 696. The Notes disclose a purpose to adhere to the common law in the application of evidentiary principles, absent express provisions to the contrary. Id. The Court noted that the advisory notes did not reveal a purpose to scuttle the common law premotive requirement. Id. at 161-62, 115 S.Ct. 696. {43} At common law, prior consistent statements were admissible for rehabilitation on several theories: (1) to place a supposed inconsistent statement in context to refute the alleged inconsistency; (2) to support the denial of making an inconsistent statement; (3) to refute the suggestion that the witness's memory is flawed due to the passage of time; and (4) to refute an allegation of recent fabrication, improper influence, or motive. See United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51, 67-69 (2d Cir.1979) (Friendly, J., concurring), aff'd, 449 U.S. 424, 101 S.Ct. 698, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981); see also Kellam v. Thomas, 287 So.2d 733, 734-35 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974). As Justice Breyer noted in his dissent, Rule 801(d) deals only with the fourth theory on which prior consistent statements may be offered. Tome, 513 U.S. at 170, 115 S.Ct. 696 (Breyer, J., dissenting). {44} There is language in Tome that suggests that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) is the only source for the admission of prior consistent statements in the Federal Rules of Evidence. For example, the Court stated that the question is whether [declarant's] out-of-court statements rebutted the alleged link between her desire to be with her mother and her testimony, not whether they suggested that [declarant's] in-court testimony was true. The Rule speaks of a party rebutting an alleged motive, not bolstering the veracity of the story told. Tome, 513 U.S. at 157-58, 115 S.Ct. 696. In addition, the Court opined that [i]f Rule 801 were read so that the charge opened the floodgates to any prior consistent statement that satisfied Rule 403, as the Tenth Circuit concluded, the distinction between rejected Uniform Rule 63(1) [allowing any out-of-court statement if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination] and Rule 801(d)(1)(B) would all but disappear. Tome, 513 U.S. at 162, 115 S.Ct. 696. These statements could be interpreted to mean that the United States Supreme Court interpreted Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as the sole means of admitting prior consistent statements and that even rehabilitative uses must comply with Rule 801 and the premotive requirement. However, we do not believe that Tome should be interpreted so broadly or that our Rules of Evidence should be interpreted so narrowly. {45} First, we construe these statements in Tome as dicta because, as the majority in Tome noted, the actual use of the evidence in Tome was substantive rather than rehabilitative. 513 U.S. at 165, 115 S.Ct. 696 (At closing argument before the jury, the Government placed great reliance on the prior statements for substantive purposes but did not once seek to use them to rebut the impact of the alleged motive.). Additionally, the advisory notes indicate that the Federal Rules altered the common law by allowing the use of prior consistent statements offered under the fourth theory, to refute a charge of recent fabrication, as substantive evidence. Thus, the advisory committee appears not to have rejected the common law approach to prior consistent statements but, rather, to have broadened the use of prior consistent statements admissible at common law. As the majority in Tome reasoned, `[w]ith this state of unanimity confronting the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence, we think it unlikely that they intended to scuttle entirely [the common-law requirement].' Tome, 513 U.S. at 161, 115 S.Ct. 696 (quoting United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 50, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984)). Therefore, we think it is highly unlikely that the drafters intended to scuttle three of the four theories under which prior consistent statements were admissible at common law without expressly so indicating. Rather, we believe that prior consistent statements continue to be admissible on these theories for purposes of rehabilitation, consistent with the common law, and subject to principles of relevancy and undue prejudice pursuant to Rules 401, 402, and 403. Further, this interpretation is consistent with the traditional understanding of hearsay; the rehabilitative use of the statements does not purport to offer the words for the truth of the matter asserted but, instead, to refute a specific attack against the witness's credibility. See Frank W. Bullock, Jr. & Steven Gardner, Prior Consistent Statements and the Premotive Rule, 24 Fla. St. U.L.Rev. 509, 539 (1997). It appears that this interpretation is consistent with all of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals which have addressed the issue, see id., except for the Ninth Circuit, which has precedent holding the opposite, United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1273 (9th Cir.1989), but which currently appears undecided on the matter in the wake of Tome, United States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973, 982 n. 11 (9th Cir.1996). Our interpretation of Tome is also consistent with a recent opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals. See Holmes v. State, 350 Md. 412, 712 A.2d 554, 560 (Md.1998) (We believe that Tome left open the question of whether a prior consistent statement may be admissible for other rehabilitating purposes.). Notwithstanding our interpretation of Tome, we believe our Rules of Evidence incorporated the common law rule regarding prior consistent statements. Therefore, we conclude that Rule 11-801 does not prohibit certain limited rehabilitative uses of prior consistent statements. {46} In this case, Defendants attacked Lucero's credibility on two grounds which allow admission of the prior consistent statement. First, counsel for Defendant Smith suggested on cross-examination of Lucero that Lucero's in-court testimony was inconsistent with his statements to his aunt. At common law, the State would be permitted to introduce the complete statement to his aunt to rebut the suggestion that it was inconsistent, as well as under the doctrine of completeness. See, e.g., Ellis, 121 F.3d at 920-21; cf. Holmes, 712 A.2d at 559-60 (permitting use of prior consistent statement to rebut impeachment through prior inconsistent statement). Second, counsel for Defendant Smith asked Lucero on cross-examination whether he had admitted killing Younger to his cousin, Denise Purcell-Abeyta, and another woman, Matilda Gonzales; Lucero denied making the admission. Defendants then called Purcell-Abeyta and Gonzales to the witness stand to relate Lucero's alleged admission. At common law, the State could introduce Lucero's consistent statement to Satomba in order to bolster Lucero's denial of making the prior inconsistent statement to Purcell-Abeyta and Gonzales. See, e.g., State v. Franco, 365 A.2d 807, 812 & n. 5 (Me.1976); Brown v. Pointer, 390 Mich. 346, 212 N.W.2d 201, 203-04 (Mich.1973). Thus, we conclude it was not error for the district court to admit the prior consistent statement for purposes of rehabilitation.