Opinion ID: 1484914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Smith's Police Statement

Text: We first address defendant's contention that the trial justice erred by allowing Smith's police statement to be introduced at trial. At issue is the fifty-page transcript of the statement Smith gave to detectives A'Vant and Lamont on March 19, 1997, while at the ACI. Over defense counsel's objection, the trial justice allowed the statement into evidence, as a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5). Rule 803(5) provides: A memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable the witness to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness' memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly. If admitted, the memorandum or record may be read into evidence and received as an exhibit. We previously have had occasion to consider the use of a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5) and the four prerequisites to admissibility: (1) that the witness whose prior statement is sought to be introduced have firsthand knowledge of the event at issue; (2) that the recorded memoranda was made at or near the time of the event while the witness had a clear memory; (3) that the witness is now unable to recall the incident independently; and (4) that the witness can attest that the recorded recollection was accurate when made. State v. Gabriau, 696 A.2d 290, 297 (R.I.1997) (quoting State v. Ricci, 639 A.2d 64, 67 (R.I.1994)); State v. Vento, 533 A.2d 1161, 1165 (R.I.1987). The record discloses that Smith never acknowledged, and indeed refused to admit, that the recorded recollection was accurate when made; and thus it was impossible for the proponent to meet the fourth requirement of Rule 803(5), that the witness can attest that the recorded recollection was accurate when made. Gabriau, 696 A.2d at 297. Past recollection recorded has historically been a vehicle for the admission of prior statements when live testimony is not available because of a lack of memory. Id. Under this reasoning, a prior recorded document is admitted as a substitute for the current lack of adequate memory of the events. Id. That is not what transpired in this case because Smith refused to acknowledge the accuracy of the statement. The state conceded this error in its brief and admitted that, [t]he fourth prerequisite, which requires the witness to attest to the accuracy of the statement sought to be admitted under [Rule] 803(5), is a much closer question. However, the state urges us to affirm the ruling on other grounds. In State v. Froais, 653 A.2d 735, 738 (R.I.1995), this Court declared that, we have long upheld a trial justice's decision in various contexts even though the specific grounds relied upon by the justice were erroneous.  Indeed, there are numerous examples of our having done just that: State v. Ellis, 619 A.2d 418, 425-26 (R.I.1993) (decision to allow the defendant's statement into evidence upheld on different factual findings than were relied upon by the trial justice); State v. Nordstrom, 529 A.2d 107, 111 (R.I.1987) (This court on appeal is free to affirm a ruling on grounds other than those stated by the lower-court judge). Accordingly, we are satisfied that when an out-of-court statement is admissible under a recognized exception to the hearsay rule, we shall uphold its admission, notwithstanding any error on the trial justice's ruling. The state suggests, and we agree, that the statement could have been admitted as a prior inconsistent statement in accordance with Rule 801(d)(1)(A) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence. Specifically, Rule 801(d)(1)(A) provides: A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony   . The state points to our decision in State v. Jaiman, 850 A.2d 984 (R.I.2004), as support for its contention that we should affirm the admission of the statement under to Rule 801(d)(1)(A). In Jaiman, the state was faced with a previously cooperative witness who engaged in a testimonial double-cross of the state while at trial. Jaiman, 850 A.2d at 985. The state attempted to refresh the witness's recollection on direct examination by using his prior statement to the police; and a portion of that statement eventually came into evidence under agreement by both parties. Id. at 986. Later in the trial, the state sought to introduce additional portions of the statement through a witness who was present when the statement was made. Id. We upheld its admission and declared: Accordingly, the touchstone of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) is that the witness testify at trial and be available for cross-examination. Although [the witness] did testify at trial and was, in fact, cross-examined, [the] defendant contends that [the witness's] comprehensive inability to recall either his previous testimony or some of the events of September 18, 1993, rendered him functionally unavailable for cross-examination. We disagree; the rule against hearsay is not violated by resort to a prior out-of-court statement by a witness who is reneging on his cooperation agreement based on his ostensible belief that truthful testimony was a once-in-a-lifetime proposition. Jaiman, 850 A.2d at 988. Here, as in Jaiman, Smith testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. Although the witness purported to suffer from jail-house amnesia, a frequent malaise, this circumstance does not negate the underlying rationale for admissibility under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). In fact, this precisely is the reason for the rule: to allow for statements, such as Smith's statement to the state police, to be introduced as substantive evidence in order for the fact finder to decide which statement, if any, is worthy of belief. We conclude that the introduction of Smith's statement to the police investigators was proper under Rule 801(d)(1)(A).