Opinion ID: 2514192
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: W.R.E. 804(b)(6), the Catchall Exception

Text: [¶ 15] Young contends that this statement met all requirements for admission. HAC contends that Young failed to give HAC adequate notice that it intended to introduce the statement under this exception, failed to prove unavailability, and the trial court properly ruled the sworn statement did not possess circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. We have identified the following as requirements for admission under W.R.E. 804(b)(6): First, the declarant must be unavailable. Second, the adverse party must either have been given pretrial notice or a sufficient opportunity to prepare for and contest the admission of the hearsay. Third, the truth of the matter asserted must be evidence of a material fact. Fourth, the hearsay statement must be more probative than any other evidence which could be procured through reasonable efforts. Fifth, and finally, the statement must be supported by circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; this may be established either through other corroborating evidence or by considering the motivation and/or behavior pattern of the declarant. Johnson, 930 P.2d at 366 (quoting Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79, 131-32 (Wyo.1981)). [¶ 16] The record shows that the trial court did not admit this statement because of insufficient notice, and decided it failed trustworthiness requirements. Because our review of the sworn statement indicates that it was neither worthy of trust nor necessary to effectuate justice, we need not decide whether the trial court properly decided the notice issue. [¶ 17] W.R.E. 804(b)(6) applies only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Here, the trial court was concerned about the lack of opportunity to cross-examine a hearsay statement that lacked foundation for its numerous statements about what other people saw and what Kidd believed HAC employees knew and had seen. It properly considered that Kidd was available for a deposition that would have provided the opportunity for cross-examination, and we would note that if Kidd's testimony was crucial to this case, Young should have deposed him. These factors are sufficient reason to deny admission. We find no abuse of discretion. [¶ 18] We affirm the trial court's decision to exclude Kidd's sworn statement.