Opinion ID: 2570432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Admission of Burnett's Statements

Text: Sanders next contends that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence statements Sharay Burnett made to a police detective. He argues that those statements were hearsay, and their admission violated his right to confront the witnesses against him. Hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible; however, it can be received in evidence if it falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule found in the Wyoming Rules of Evidence and it bears sufficient indicia of reliability to avoid violation of the Confrontation Clause. Johnson v. State, 930 P.2d 358, 361-62 (Wyo.1996). Sanders' brief disputes many of Burnett's statements that were not admitted at trial and fails to contest some that were admitted. We will, therefore, examine all the admitted statements for error. Under W.R.E. 804(b)(3), statements that were against a declarant's penal interests when made are excepted from the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable to testify. [3] That exception applies to statements that are self-inculpatory, including those that are intertwined or closely connected to statements that another was also involved and applies even if spreading the blame serves the interests of the declarant. Brown v. State, 953 P.2d 1170, 1178 (Wyo. 1998). The following exchanges took place during the State's direct examination of the detective who questioned Burnett: Q. During the course of your interview with Sharay Burnett, did she ever state that there came a time when there was formed some kind of an agreement or understanding between herself and Mr. Sanders that [the victim] would die? A. Yes. Q. Explain that, if you would. A. Mr. Sanders had approached Sharay and said that he could not kill [the victim] without her permission. And she subsequently gave her permission by answering, yeah, whatever. Q. Did he specifically ask her the question, do I have your approval to do this? A. Correct. Q. And she responded? A. Yeah, whatever. The statements of Burnett recounted above were clearly against her penal interests when made because they could aid her prosecution on a charge of conspiracy to commit murder. The next recorded admission of Burnett's statement is: Q. According to Sharay Burnett, how long did this episode involving [the victim] and his deathwhen did it end? A. Less than an hour, it concluded a little after 1:00 in the morning. Q. According to Sharay Burnett, were there any other discussions between herself and Mr. Sanders after this initial part that you testified, do I have your approval? Were there any other discussions after that between herself and Mr. Sanders as to how [the victim] would die? A. Yes. Q. What did she state they discussed? A. They discussed that they would use a razor. Sharay recollects that it was Mike Sanders who broke the razor; that it was herself, Sharay, who provided the pipe with the tape on it. Q. This is the marijuana pipe we heard about? A. Correct, and it was Mike Sanders who had the spoon. That it was Mike Sanders who attached the blade of the disposable razor to the spoon using electrical tape. These statements are even more inculpatory because Burnett not only conspired, she knowingly provided a portion of the intended murder weapon. The next use of Burnett's statements continues along the same lines: Q. And who affixed the blade to the spoon handle? A. Mr. Sanders did. Q. According to him? A. According to him and Sharay. Although this portion is more inculpatory of Sanders than of Burnett, it shows that Burnett knew what was happening, agreed to the plan, and did nothing to stop it. In addition, the information is substantiated not only by Sanders' statement to the detectives, but also by Sanders' testimony at trial. The use of Burnett's statements continued with: Q. As it concerns the course of events that we talked about thus fardo I have your approval, and the preparations of this instrumentwhat act did Ms. Burnett say she did herself? A. She provided the pipe with the tape on it. Q. Who ran the bath water? A. She did. Q. Moving on, according to Sharay Burnett, did she reflect to you in your interview with her any statements made by [the victim] once this agreement had been set in motion after this instrument has been prepared, after [the victim is] in the bathtub, did she reflect any statements made then by [the victim]? A. Yes, sir, she did. Q. Lay that out, if you would, so we know the context and what was said. A. Sharay was in her bedroom, which is a common wall to the bathroom, and she heard [the victim] scream out, Please stop. I changed my mind. Q. Did she indicate in the course of your interview how many times this was said by [the victim]? A. She said over and over, 10, 20 times. Q. You used the words scream out. Were those her words? A. Yes. Q. Please stop. I've changed my mind. Anything else? A. If you want to refer me to the correct page. Q. Page 30, page 31. A. Her statement? Q. Yes, sorry. A. Please, I changed my mind. I changed my mind. Q. As it goes into page 31, any other statements made? A. Please, I changed my mind. I don't want to do this. I changed my mind. Q. You indicated where was [the victim] at that time? A. In the bathtub in the upstairs bathroom. Q. Did she indicate she could hear any noises in addition to the statements? A. Yes. Q. What noise? A. Thrashing of the water. The water was turned on in the tub. Thumping sounds. Q. So hearing this thrashing and the water rushing, the noises, and please stop, what did she state she did? A. She left the bedroom and went towards the bathroom. These statements are also self-inculpatory. The beginning of this exchange revisits Burnett's culpability for conspiracy and her part in preparing the intended weapon. The latter part shows that Burnett knew the victim was struggling and pleading for his life, yet she did nothing to assist him or summon help. The testimony continued with: Q. Sharay moves to the bathroom area. Was there any conversation then she related to you between herself and Mr. Sanders? A. Yes. Q. What was that conversation? A. Mr. Sanders asked Sharay if they had a sharper knife. Q. And how did she respond? A. She stated no. Q. Did she state she could hear anything coming out of the bathroom at that time? A. She could hear [the victim] gurgling. Q. Any other conversation between herself and Mr. Sanders? A. Mr. Sanders asked if they had a steak knife and Sharay said she did. Q. What did she do? A. She walked downstairs to the kitchen area and retrieved the steak knife. Q. What did she do with it? A. Walked up the first set of stairs to the landing, and she gave it to Mike Sanders. In the above exchange, Burnett admitted again that she heard the victim's plight and took no action to prevent his death. In addition, she provided a second weapon after the first one failed. The same information was presented again, as recorded below: Q. Let's go back and do that sequence to make sure it'safter the point in time where you have got Sharay Burnett where she told you she is in her bedroom and she hears, Please stop. I changed my mind, from [the victim], you indicated she went to the bathroom doorway. What conversation then was had, according to Ms. Burnett? A. According to Ms. Burnett, Mike Sanders asked her if she had a sharper knife, where she responded no. Mike Sanders then asked her if she had a steak knife, and she responded yes. Q. And then what did Miss Burnett state she did, after saying, yeah, I got a steak knife? A. She went to the kitchen downstairs and retrieved the knife. Q. What did Ms. Burnett state she did with that knife? A. Back up the staircase, and about the landing of that staircase, Ms. Burnett stated this is when she gave this knife to Mike Sanders. The final use of Burnett's statement is recorded as: Q. Turning back then to your interview with Ms. Burnett. At this point in time where she hands the knife to Mr. Sanders on the landing of the stairs, did she indicate there was any further conversation between herself and Mr. Sanders then? A. Yes. Q. What did she state that was? A. Thataccording to Ms. Burnett, that Mike Sanders had stated that they had to finish it; that it had gone too far. Q. Did she agree with this? A. Yes. Q. According to Ms. Burnett, where did they then go? A. They went back to her bedroom. Q. Did she state she heard anything from [the victim] at that time? A. Yes. Q. What did she say she could hear from [the victim]? A. [The victim] was saying please. Q. Did she indicate she heard any statements from Mr. Sanders at that time? A. Yes, she did. Q. What did she state he was saying? A. Mr. Sanders was stating, Let go of my arm. Let go of my arm. Lay your arms down. Q. Afterwards, sticking still with your interview with Ms. Burnett, [the victim] is dead, any conversation then about cover-up, what to say, what to do? A. Yes, it was. Q. What did Ms. Burnett state that conversation was? A. That Mike instructed her if anyone should ask concerning [the victim], she should tell them that [the victim] left with two Mexicans to go buy some beer and marijuana. Q. Did she agree that she could do that? A. Yes, she did. Q. And you had discussion about disposing of the body? A. Yes, Mr. Sanders said that he would take care of that. In this final excerpt, Burnett admitted that she conspired with Sanders to cover up the murder, another statement clearly against her penal interests. Having determined that Burnett's statements were admissible under the rules of evidence, we must next, in accordance with our standard articulated in Johnson, determine whether they bear sufficient indicia of reliability to avoid violation of the Confrontation Clause. We hold that they do. First, the statements were very incriminating of Burnett. In fact, Burnett's entire statement to the detective was admitted at her trial; she was convicted as an accessory to first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. See Brown, 953 P.2d at 1179-80 (the very fact that a statement is self-inculpatory is itself one of the particularized guarantees of trustworthiness that makes a statement admissible under the Confrontation Clause.) Second, Burnett was not offered any leniency in exchange for her statement, as evidenced by her conviction and life sentence. Id. at 1180. Finally, much of the detailed information in Burnett's statement is corroborated by Sanders' statement and testimony, the testimony of other witnesses, and the physical evidence presented at trial. Id. An example of that corroboration is her mention of the steak knife, which law enforcement officials did not locate until several days after Burnett's statement. Burnett's statements to the detective were properly admitted under our rules of evidence and bore sufficient indicia of reliability. We, therefore, hold that its admission at trial was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Because the trial court did not err in the admission of that testimony or in its instructions to the jury, we affirm Sanders' conviction and sentence.