Opinion ID: 2318093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Foundational Requirements of Title 11, Section 3507

Text: The video of S.C.'s interview at the CAC was a significant part of the State's case. For the video of the CAC interview to be admitted into evidence, the State was required to satisfy the foundational requirements of title 11, section 3507 of the Delaware Code. [17] Gomez argues that the trial judge abused his discretion in admitting the video of the CAC interview, because the State did not satisfy the foundational requirements of section 3507. Gomez also argues that the State should have been required to elicit testimony from S.C. that addressed the basic elements of the crimes charged. [18] Title 11, section 3507 of the Delaware Code provides: (a) In a criminal prosecution, the voluntary out-of-court prior statement of a witness who is present and subject to cross-examination may be used as affirmative evidence with substantive independent testimonial value. (b) The rule in subsection (a) of this section shall apply regardless of whether the witness' in-court testimony is consistent with the prior statement or not. The rule shall likewise apply with or without a showing of surprise by the introducing party. (c) This section shall not be construed to affect the rules concerning the admission of statements of defendants or of those who are codefendants in the same trial. This section shall also not apply to the statements of those whom to cross-examine would be to subject to possible self-incrimination. During the forty-one years since the General Assembly enacted section 3507, this Court has established certain foundational requirements for the admission of statements under that section. In a trilogy of recent cases, we ratified and reaffirmed our prior holdings. [19] We explained: A two-part foundation must be established by the State during its direct examination before a witness' prior statement can be admitted under section 3507. First, the witness must testify about the events. [20] As to this requirement, we have explained that the direct examination must touch both on the events perceived and the out-of-court statement itself. [21] Second, the witness must indicate whether or not the events are true. [22] We again reaffirm those holdings.