Opinion ID: 874877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lane Thomas' confessions must meet the standards of I.R.E. 804(b)(3) in order to be admissible.

Text: Trial counsel and the district court applied this Court's standard in Larsen for a determination of whether Thomas' confessions were admissible. The application of Larsen is incorrect because it was implicitly overruled by this Court's adoption of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. Therefore, whether Thomas' confessions should have been admitted is dictated by I.R.E. 401, 402, 403 and 804(b)(3). 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. I.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay is not admissible unless it falls under an exception in the Idaho Rules of Evidence or another rule formulated by the Idaho Supreme Court. I.R.E. 802. A statement is not hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and it is [a] statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by declarant against another, that a reasonable man in declarant's position would not have made the statement unless declarant believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. I.R.E. 804(b)(3) (emphasis added). These corroborating circumstances are necessary and must clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 16-17, 909 P.2d 624, 634-35 (Ct.App. 1995). Several confessions may act to corroborate each other. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 300, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297, 311-12 (1973) (listing several factors that would provide considerable assurance that hearsay statements are reliable, including [t]he sheer number of independent confessions provided additional corroboration for each.) The court of appeals dealt with the present issue in State v. Meister, 2007 WL 2821981 (Ct.App.2007) (unpublished opinion) by adopting Arizona's standard in State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 28, 734 P.2d 563, 570 (1987). In LaGrand, the Arizona supreme court established seven factors [7] for determining the reliability and corroboration of a statement subjected to the hearsay exception established in 804(b)(3). Id. at 27-28, 734 P.2d at 569-70. The court ultimately held that a judge's inquiry, made to assure himself [or herself] that the corroboration requirement of Rule 804(b)(3) has been satisfied, should be limited to asking whether evidence in the record corroborating and contradicting the declarant's statement would permit a reasonable person to believe that the statement could be true.  Id. at 28, 734 P.2d at 570 (emphasis added). This will protect the province of the jury as the fact-finder and prevent the judge from be[ing] able to bootstrap himself [or herself] into the jury box via evidentiary rules. Id. This Court adopts Arizona's standard and seven factor test for the corroboration requirement pursuant to I.R.E. 804(b)(3). The offer of proof and the record contain two reports from people who heard Lane Thomas confess to the Tonya Hart shooting. One is a police report taken from an inmate in Spokane County. [8] The other is a handwritten statement taken by the Latah County Sheriff's Office along with the officer's notes. [9] Additionally, Thomas made a third inculpatory statement after Meister's conviction which is contained in Meister's motion for a new trial. The first two confessions were made by Thomas to fellow inmates at the Whitman County Jail. The inculpatory statement was made as a threat to a woman who was owed money by Thomas. [10] All three of the statements tend to implicate that Thomas was the person or one of the people responsible for the shooting death of Tonya. The district court ruled in limine that the defense would not be allowed to call Lane Thomas to testify or be allowed to call the persons who heard the confessions potentially to impeach any testimony provided by Lane Thomas. When defense counsel asked for the basis of the court's ruling the court replied I think I've given it. The court did not issue a written order memorializing the basis of its decision. The only authority discussed during the motion hearing was this Court's decision in Larsen. Although the district court applied the wrong standard to determine whether the statements were admissible, the district court did make a finding that the evidence presented in the offer of proof did not sufficiently corroborate the evidence. Therefore, the district court correctly found that some corroboration is necessary in order for the statements to be admissible. The governing standard of whether a third-party's statements tending to inculpate the declarant and exculpate the accused is governed by I.R.E. 804(b)(3). Further, this Court adopts Arizona's test for a trial court to determine whether the third-party confessions are sufficiently corroborated in accordance with I.R.E. 804(b)(3); that test being, whether evidence in the record corroborating and contradicting the declarant's statement would permit a reasonable person to believe that the statement could be true. This test is desirable because it prevents the trial judge from substituting himself or herself as the ultimate fact-finder. If the statements clearly establish trustworthiness through corroborating evidence it is within the province of the jury to weigh the testimony and determine where the truth lies. The district court applied the wrong standard to determine whether Lane Thomas' confessions should be excluded. Whether the district court violated Meister's right to due process, right of appeal, and Fifth Amendment rights by threatening a harsher sentence if Meister refused to admit guilt. We decline to address this issue because Meister's sentence has been vacated and this case is remanded for a new trial.