Opinion ID: 1889175
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unavailability of a Declarant

Text: As we articulated it in Tovar , the first step in determining whether a statement is admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) is to determine whether Vega-Lara, the declarant, was unavailable. See 605 N.W.2d at 723. Minnesota Rule of Evidence 804(a)(2) states that a witness is unavailable for purposes of hearsay exceptions if he persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so. The comment to Rule 804 states that [i]f the declarant is present at trial but will not or cannot testify as to an issue for any reason, whether justified or not, the declarant is deemed to be unavailable on that issue for the purposes of the rule. Minn. R. Evid. 804 comm. cmt.1989. Though Vega-Lara was physically present at Morales's trial, it is undisputed that he consistently refused to testify about the robbery and murderthe subject matter of his statements to M.G.as well as his conversation with M.G. We conclude that Vega-Lara's persistent and consistent refusal to testify, despite the court's order compelling him to do so, made Vega-Lara unavailable for purposes of Rule 804(b)(3).