Opinion ID: 2613256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial Court Properly Refused to Admit Ruben Herrera's Out-of-Court Statement

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court erred by refusing to admit Ruben's purported out-of-court statement indicating that Senior shot Deputy Marconnet. Defendant argues that Ruben's statement is admissible as a hearsay exception under rule 804(b)(3), Arizona Rules of Evidence (statement against declarant's penal interest). We disagree. [A]dmission of evidence is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 27, 734 P.2d 563, 569 (1987). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in this use. Defendant's guilt in this crime is as an accomplice and is not controlled by whether Mickel or Senior fired the fatal shot. Even if Senior did shoot Deputy Marconnet, sufficient evidence in this record supports defendant's felony murder conviction as an accomplice. Thus, Ruben's statement indicating that Senior shot Deputy Marconnet is irrelevant in this case and its rejection was neither erroneous nor prejudicial. See rule 402, Arizona Rules of Evidence (Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.).