Opinion ID: 2263311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The trial judge allegedly abused his discretion by admitting Alicia's handwritten statements explaining the sexual assaults.

Text: Alicia provided the Florida police with a handwritten statement describing how and when Miller sexually assaulted her. Over defense counsel's objection, the State introduced the statements under 11 Del. C. § 3507. Miller contends that the trial judge erred by admitting these handwritten statements. Our review of a ruling on the admissibility of a Section 3507 statement is for abuse of discretion. [55] 11 Del.C. § 3507 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. Here, the parties agree that Alicia voluntarily made the statement. Miller, however, argues that the Florida police had to be subject to cross-examination for the statements to be admissible under § 3507. In Keys v. State , we addressed the subject to cross-examination requirement of § 3507: the declarant must be called as a witness by the party introducing the statement and the direct examination of the declarant `should touch both on the events perceived and the out-of-court statement itself.' [56] Alicia, not the Florida police, made the written statements. The State called Alicia, the author (declarant) of the written statements, and her direct examination touched on the written statements themselves. Therefore, because Alicia's statements were voluntary and she was subject to cross-examination, her statements were admissible under § 3507. Miller also suggests that even if the statements were admissible under § 3507, the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington [57] bars the admission of the statements. This argument also lacks merit. In Crawford, the United States Supreme Court stated: when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements. [58] As discussed above, Alicia, the declarant, testified at trial and defense counsel cross-examined her about her earlier written statements. Therefore, the Confrontation Clause placed no constraints on the use of her earlier statements. [59]