Opinion ID: 2317061
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evans's Recantation as Inadmissible Hearsay

Text: The state next argues that Evans's videotaped recantation was improperly admitted into evidence as substantive proof of defendant's innocence. As a general matter, [t]he admissibility of evidence is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial justice and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Briggs, 886 A.2d 735, 749-50 (R.I.2005) (quoting State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1031 (R.I. 2004)). The Rhode Island Rules of Evidence apply at a post-conviction relief hearing just as they would at any other civil proceeding in this state. See § 10-9.1-7. Rule 801(c) of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence defines hearsay 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. See also State v. Grayhurst, 852 A.2d 491, 505 (R.I. 2004). Some statements constitute non-hearsay, Rule 801(d)(1-2); but a hearsay statement is inadmissible unless it falls within a hearsay exception contained elsewhere within the Rules of Evidence. R.I. R. Evid. 803, 804. There is no doubt that Evans's recantation constituted hearsay. It was an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted: that Evans did not see defendant at the scene and that his trial testimony was false. See Rule 801(c). Therefore, to be admissible, the statement either must have qualified as non-hearsay or fallen within some recognized hearsay exception. Evans's videotaped recantation simply cannot qualify as non-hearsay under Rule 801. Under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), a prior statement of a witness who testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination is not hearsay if the statement is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony. State v. Jaiman, 850 A.2d 984, 987-88 (R.I.2004). Evans invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing, meaning he neither testified nor was subject to cross-examination. In addition, Evans's videotaped recantation falls within no recognized hearsay exception. At the post-conviction relief hearing, over the state's objection, defendant argued that Evans's videotaped recantation was admissible as a statement against his penal interest. Evans's attorney clarified that his client's reluctance to testify was based, at least in part, on the potential for a perjury prosecution. According to Rule 804(b), a declarant must be unavailable before a party may use the provisions therein. Rule 804(b)(3) provides that [a] statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. In other words, the hearing justice must have been satisfied that there existed satisfactory corroborating indicia of trustworthiness surrounding Evans's recantation to overcome the presumption in Rule 804(b)(3) that this evidence ordinarily is inadmissible. In State v. DeRoche, 120 R.I. 523, 389 A.2d 1229 (1978), this Court discussed the parameters of our Rule 804(b)(3). There we cited Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), as support for the proposition that statements against interest are admissible only where the particular statements under consideration bore substantial assurances of trustworthiness. DeRoche, 120 R.I. at 531, 389 A.2d at 1233. To ascertain whether the statement(s) in question are sufficiently trustworthy, the Chambers Court looked to three factors: first, to whom and how close in time to the crime the statement was made; second, whether the statement is corroborated by other evidence; and third, whether the statement is truly self-incriminatory. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 300-01, 93 S.Ct. 1038; cf. Cabrera v. State, 840 A.2d 1256, 1267 (Del. 2004) (approving the use of these factors when considering whether corroborating circumstances support the trustworthiness of a statement against interest). Although Evans did secure his unavailability by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, see Rule 804(a)(1), his videotaped recantation clearly did not bear substantial indicia of trustworthiness sufficient to overcome the presumption of its inadmissibility. First, Evans's recantation was made on June 24, 1997, more than a year and a half after Evans witnessed Carpenter's murder. In addition, the videotaped recantation represented Evans's third different version of the events surrounding Carpenter's death since the murder. Furthermore, there was no evidence apart from the testimony of a codefendant to suggest that the version of events as recited in Evans's recantation was any more plausible than the version the jury found credible in 1997  a version tested in more than 100 pages of cross-examination. Finally, Smith's testimony about the circumstances surrounding the making of the videotape has no bearing on the trustworthiness of the substantive claims made in Evans's recantation. Accordingly, we hold the trial justice abused his discretion by admitting Evans's recantation into evidence.