Opinion ID: 1316227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ennen's Out-of-Court Statement

Text: We review a district court's evidentiary ruling on whether to admit a statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Keltner, 147 F.3d 662, 670 (8th Cir.1998). Under Rule 804(b)(3), a hearsay statement is admissible if: (1) the declarant [is] unavailable to testify at trial, (2) the statement . . . tend[s] to subject the declarant to criminal liability to such an extent that no reasonable person in his position would have made the statement unless he believed it to be true, and (3) the statement [is] supported by corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statement. Id. (quoting United States v. Bobo, 994 F.2d 524, 528 (8th Cir.1993)). While Ironi proffered two different versions of Seisler's proposed testimony, he argues on appeal that the district court erred in refusing to allow Seisler to testify about the second version, Ennen's allegedly saying [d]on't tell Marco. He doesn't know I'm selling drugs from his home. The parties do not contest the first part of the three-part test. The second part is satisfied because the statement is an explicit admission that Ennen is selling drugs and would tend to subject him to criminal liability. As to the third part, though, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the second version was not supported by corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of the statement. See id. Instead, the circumstances show that the second version was not trustworthy. That version was undermined by Ennen's own testimony at his plea hearing when he stated that both he and Ironi sold drugs from Ironi's house. Furthermore, the first version of Seisler's testimony proffered by Ironi's counsel was dramatically different than the second version at issue in this appeal. In the first version, Ennen allegedly told Seisler that there were no drug sales being conducted from the home in Roseville. This statement directly contradicted the second version that Ennen was selling drugs at Ironi's house. Without any corroborating evidence as to the trustworthiness of the second version, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Seisler to testify about Ennen's alleged out-of-court statement.