Opinion ID: 2514192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: W.R.E. 804(b)(3), Statement Against Interest

Text: [¶ 11] Hearsay is defined as 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. W.R.E. 801(c). A statement is an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion. W.R.E. 801(a). The word statement means a single declaration or remark, rather than a report or narrative, so that when ruling on the admissibility of a narrative, we must break down the narrative and determine the separate admissibility of each single declaration or remark. State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569, 461 S.E.2d 75, 91 (1995); see Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 2434-35, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994) (discussing hearsay in the context of F.R.E. 804(b)(3) exception for statements against interest). Kolb v. State, 930 P.2d 1238, 1245-46 (Wyo. 1996). [¶ 12] Here, Young presented Kidd's lengthy sworn statement to be read into evidence, and the trial court determined that because it contained a number of statements describing what other people believed and saw, it was inadmissible for lack of foundation. Our review indicates that the record supports the trial court's view that nearly all of the sworn statement, which is well over twenty-five pages, primarily consists of statements that are not statements against interest, but are inadmissible narrative. [¶ 13] Considering the admissibility of each single declaration or remark as we must, we do see that Kidd admits that he assaulted Young; however, as Young acknowledges, Kidd admitted it after he had been tried and convicted for that crime. Consequently, the only liability at stake was civil liability. Young contends that the HAC's pending cross-claim against Kidd qualifies the entire statement as admissible as a statement against interest. HAC contends that Kidd, having already admitted to criminal liability, which then became a matter of public record, did not increase his civil liability, but, instead, was actually attempting to enter an exculpatory statement. See Johnson v. State, 930 P.2d 358 (Wyo.1996). [¶ 14] The record shows that the trial court received and considered written memorandum supporting each parties' arguments and heard oral argument. Having considered written and oral argument, the trial court determined that the sworn statement was not a statement against interest and ruled it was inadmissible hearsay. Our review indicates that the record supports the decision to exclude the entire sworn statement. Although a single statement within the entire statement was an admission that he attacked Young, Kidd provided the entire statement to exculpate himself from liability, and it is not admissible under W.R.E. 804(b)(3), the statement against interest exception.