Court Opinion

ID: 9686441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:48:07.212143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:18.948949
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting.) I join Justice Ceci’s dissent and, in addition, I write to express my belief that the majority’s new test for the admissible evidence leaves no discretion with the trial judges. Designed, devised and devisive hearsay is now accept*670able under this new test. All statements against penal interest whether corroborated or not must now be admitted if "[the] corroboration [is] sufficient to permit a reasonable person to conclude, in light of all the facts and circumstances, that the statement could be true." (Majority at 656.) I believe it is first necessary to have corroboration that the statement was even made. The word "could" in the majority's test is similar to another equally weak determinative word "possible." Anything is "possible;" that a statement could be true should not be the standard, but rather the test should be whether corroborating circumstances indicate that, on balance, it is more probable than not that the statement was true or even made. This standard, i.e., one of the probability, strikes a balance between the majority's "possibility" standard and the more stringent standard requiring clear corroboration.