Court Opinion

ID: 9767226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:13:25.229495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:29.620234
License: Public Domain

STORCKMAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree that this court should undertake to divide the statement attributed to Mrs. Carpenter and indicate that the words “Yes, I know” be admitted on a retrial. The speaker is dead and cannot be heard to deny, verify or explain. The statement comes to us through repetition by the truck driver, a party defendant. The principal opinion points out that: “A witness at trial may, intentionally or otherwise, change a word and convey a meaning completely different from that intended by the declarant.”
We go a step further in this case. The statement was transcribed and punctuated by the court reporter. Punctuation can vary the meaning and the court should not be bound by the punctuation supplied by the court reporter. As reported in the transcript, the statement is: “Yes, I know, it’s not your fault.” If the second comma is omitted, the statement is: “Yes, I know it’s not your fault.” Or all punctuation could be omitted with the same result that the whole statement would unquestionably relate to an opinion as to fault.
In any event, it is quite speculative to say that the statement, or any part of it, is a factual declaration. The matter of punctuation, however, makes it more so and demonstrates that the statement should be rejected as an entirety.
I am further convinced that the statement, in whole or in part, is not admissible as a declaration against interest as an exception to the hearsay rule. Fairly definite standards have been established which must be met to qualify a statement as such an exception.
The .principal opinion cites and quotes from the case of Neely v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 241 Mo.App. 1244, 252 S.W.2d 88, with respect to the distinction between admissions against interest and declarations against interest which is helpful. The Neely opinion also sets out standards to which a statement must conform to qualify as a declaration against interest which are as follows: “To be admissible such a declaration (a) must spring from the peculiar means of knowledge of the matter stated, (b) must be against the interest of the declarant at the time made, and (c) such interest must be so apparent as to have been presumably in the declar-ant’s mind when made.” 252 S.W.2d at page 91. The letters in parentheses are added for emphasis and easy reference. This statement from the Neely case is based on McComb v. Vaughn, 358 Mo. 951, 218 S.W.2d 548, 551, and other Missouri cases and textbooks. More recently the standards are recited and discussed comprehensively in Straughan v. Asher, Mo.App., 372 S.W.2d 489, at pages 494, 495 [5, 6]. By reason of her death Mrs. Carpenter is not available as a witness, but her alleged statement does not meet the other three standards imposed.
The declaration attributed to Mrs. Carpenter (a) “must spring from the peculiar means of knowledge of the matter stated”. Mrs. Carpenter was not shown to have any “peculiar means” of knowing the position of the automobiles in the sense of being special or singular, such as the person who endorses a payment on a note or declares or disclaims his title to land. Mr. Grothoff or any bystander might have as good or better opportunity to observe the occurrence. Her means of knowledge would have to be inferred from her statement in conjunction with the self-serving statement of Mr. Grothoff. Furthermore, Mrs. Carpenter is not shown to have had knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to whether the truck driver in the exercise of the highest degree of care could have slackened his speed or swerved in time to avoid the collision. In short, she is not shown to have any means of knowing whose fault it was.
Further, in order to be admissible, the declaration (b) “must be against the inter*388est of the declarant at the time made”. The interest of the declarant must be either proprietary, pecuniary or perhaps a penal interest. 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 219; Moore v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Mo.App., 237 S.W.2d 210, 212[4]. The only possible pecuniary interest that Mrs. Carpenter could have had was a cause of action against the truck owner and its driver. It is well settled in this state that a husband’s action for the wrongful death of his wife is purely statutory and not derivative or in privity with the wife. McComb v. Vaughn, 358 Mo. 951, 218 S.W. 2d 548, 551 [5]. In this case Mrs. Carpenter received serious injuries which caused her death. She had not asserted any claim and had no opportunity to do so.
The final requirement is that (c) “such interest must be so apparent as to have been presumably in the declarant’s mind when made”. There is no basis for any presumption that Mrs. Carpenter had in mind a lawsuit for her injuries at the time she was talking to Mr. Grothoff. The defendant driver’s statement was self-serving and would ordinarily have been excluded. He had looked into the wrecked automobile and saw Mrs. Carpenter but apparently made no effort to extricate her before he left to call the highway patrol. When he returned she was trying to get out of the automobile in which she was trapped and fatally injured. That appeared to be her sole interest and concern. I would hold on these facts that the statement did not qualify as a declaration against interest. Her response was more in the nature of an amenity rather than giving attention to a pecuniary interest.
As previously stated, we are dealing with an exception to the hearsay rule. No Missouri decision has been found that justifies the admission of Mrs. Carpenter’s statement as a declaration against interest or on any other basis. This is hardly a proper case in which to enlarge the scope of this exception to the hearsay rule. The rule as presently recognized has received the careful scrutiny of this court on previous occasions and has been approved. It has functioned well and no need for a change has been demonstrated.
I would rule the statement inadmissible on the grounds that it is an entire expression of opinion as to fault and that it does not qualify as a declaration against interest. I would reverse and remand on both grounds.