Opinion ID: 2074391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interpretative Narrative Inadmissible

Text: Osorio was called as a witness for the State at trial. The prosecutor asked Osorio about a conversation she had with the chief investigating police officer, Teresa Williams (Detective Williams). The trial record reflects that Osorio did not remember the date, time or content of her purported statement. Question: When Detective Williams stopped at your apartment this past September, can you explain those circumstances? Answer: I can't remember what I said. I don't know. You know, I just can't remember what happened at that time. I did know she came to my apartment, though, yes, informed me that I would be getting, you know, information from the court, etc., setting up a meeting, etc. Question: Did she talk to you about testifying in these proceedings? Answer: I'm trying to think. I just really can't remember. The State interrupted Osorio's direct testimony to call Detective Williams to the witness stand. The purpose was to introduce into evidence, pursuant to Title 11, § 3507 of the Delaware Code, a statement made to Detective Williams by Osorio. Statements offered under section 3507 must be offered before the conclusion of the direct examination of the declarant. [1] Counsel for both defendants objected because they had not been provided with copies of Osorio's statement before trial. The prosecutor explained that this statement had not been provided because it had not been recorded, and had not been summarized or even referenced by Detective Williams in any of her police reports. The prosecutor argued that the statement given to Detective Williams by Osorio had independent relevance, because the statement indicated that the relationship between Osorio and Morgan was considerably closer than Osorio had characterized it in her direct examination. The trial judge overruled the defense objections, and permitted the prosecutor to question Detective Williams about her conversation with Osorio. Detective Williams testified that some time before trial, she learned that Osorio was going to move from her residence to the Admiral's Club Apartments in Newark. Detective Williams called the apartment office to confirm this and was told that, although Osorio was presently living there, she was in the process of moving out that very day. Detective Williams immediately drove to the Admiral's Club Apartments and located Osorio. She told Osorio about the importance of keeping the police informed of her address because Morgan's trial was approaching and she would be called as a witness. According to Detective Williams, Osorio became upset and said that she did not want to get Morgan into trouble. Detective Williams and Osorio then talked about the nature of Osorio's relationship with Morgan. Detective Williams' recollection of her conversation with Osorio was admitted into evidence as a statement by Osorio under section 3507. Morgan argues the trial judge erroneously permitted Detective Williams to deliver an interpretive narrative of Osorio's statement, contrary to this Court's holding in Huggins v. State [2] and its progeny, e.g., Flonnory v. State [3] and Hassan-El v. State. [4] The following is an excerpt from Detective Williams' testimony at trial: Question: When you spoke with Ms. Osorio in that apartment, did you take any notes? Answer: The only notes that I recall taking at that particular time were notes on where she was staying. Question: Did you take any notes about the substance of what she told you? Answer: No. Question: So all of this that you've testified to has come off the top of your head from your memory? Answer: Yes. Question: And that's about five months ago, four months ago? Answer: Yes. Question: You had the opportunity to write a police report about this information, correct? Answer: Yes. Question: Did you do that? Answer: No. Question: So you consciously chose not to write a report about this information? Answer: Yes. Question: And it's not been reduced to writing in any way? Answer: No. More than thirty years ago, in Huggins v. State , this Court held: It is the statement of the declarant that is being admitted, not the interpretative narrative of the person who heard the statement. Care should be taken to guarantee that the Statute is not abused by permitting a witness, such as a police officer, to embellish the prior statement by his own interpretation, even if the embellishment is made in the utmost good faith. Obviously, the best protection in this regard is a written statement. In the case of oral statements, the best safeguard would seem to be in foundation questions establishing the time, the place and the person to whom the statement was made. These are the traditional safeguards in treating a witness fairly when impeaching him by a prior inconsistent statement. It would seem that no less a standard should be required for evidence having substantive independent testimonial value. [5] The record reflects that Detective Williams spoke with Osorio at an unknown date and time in September 2005. The record also reflects that Osorio's statement was neither recorded nor documented in any way: Detective Williams took no notes at the time of her conversation with Osorio; the statement was not video or audio taped; no summary of the statement was written; and the statement was not mentioned in any police report. The statement surfaced for the first time ever at trial. It is the actual statement of the witness, not the police officer's interpretative narrative, which qualifies for admission under section 3507. To ensure it is the witness' statement that is admitted into evidence, the actual words should be documented in writing or recorded. [6] In Hassan-El, we noted the best way to properly present section 3507 evidence is by a written statement from the defendant or a redacted recorded statement of only the declarant's words. [7] The only evidence permitted by section 3507 is the voluntary out-of-court prior statement of a witness who is present and subject to cross-examination. [8] Therefore, the admission of the interpretive narrative by Detective Williams requires reversal of Morgan's convictions unless it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [9] Although we conclude in the next section of this opinion that the State's other evidence was sufficient for the trial court to deny Morgan's motion for a judgment of acquittal, the closeness of the record does not support the conclusion that the erroneous application of section 3507 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [10] Accordingly, we hold the trial court committed reversible error when it permitted the State to introduce into evidence, Detective Williams' interpretive narrative of her conversation with Osorio, as a statement by Osorio that was admissible under section 3507. Therefore, Morgan's convictions must be reversed.