Court Opinion

ID: 9762163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:14:26.670496+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:31.316194
License: Public Domain

BECK, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. I would remand for a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in excluding the proffered testimony by Harry Tobias concerning statements by Frankie “Spunk” Rodriguez against Rodriguez’ penal interest. Although I base my conclusion on the law as it now stands, I suggest that this case demonstrates the need to clarify the law in this area.
The exception to the hearsay rule for declarations against interest originally extended only to statements against the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest. See Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913). The United States Supreme Court recognized a limited exception for statements against penal interest “originally made and subsequently offered at trial under circumstances that provided considerable assurance of their reliability” in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 300, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1048, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973).
In this Court, the case for admissibility of declarations against penal interest was first presented persuasively in dissent in Commonwealth v. Honigman, 216 Pa.Super. 303, 264 A.2d 424 (1970) (Hoffman, J., dissenting). Judge Hoffman argued that “[t]he distinction between penal and proprietary interests ... is illogical, irrelevant, and usually undetectable.” 216 Pa.Super. 309, 264 A.2d at 427. We first held a declaration against penal interest admissible in Commonwealth v. Hackett, 225 Pa.Super. 22, 307 A.2d 334 (1973). Our holding in Hackett was limited; we admitted *503only those statements against penal interest which exculpate the defendant and are inherently trustworthy. Statements were trustworthy if they were made to a person in authority or to a person having an adverse interest to the declarant.
After Hackett, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court twice considered the scope of the hearsay exception for declarations against penal interest without reaching a conclusion which commanded a majority of the Court. In Commonwealth v. Nash, 457 Pa. 296, 324 A.2d 344 (1974), only six Justices heard the case. Two Justices (Nix, J., concurred in the result) joined an opinion of the Court holding that only those declarations against penal interest made “under circumstances that provided considerable assurance of their reliability” were admissible. Id., 457 Pa. at 302, 324 A.2d at 346, quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 300, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1048, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). The opinion also expressed approval of our decision in Hackett. Three Justices, though, joined in a concurring opinion (which is properly denominated as the plurality opinion, see Commonwealth v. Colon, 461 Pa. 577, 581, 337 A.2d 554, 556 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976)), which would have held that all declarations against penal interest are admissible and circumstances affecting reliability merely go to the weight of the evidence. This analysis, stated by Roberts, J., writing for the plurality in the Nash concurrence, was restated by Justice Roberts while speaking for the Court in Commonwealth v. Colon, 461 Pa. 577, 337 A.2d 554 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1056, 96 S.Ct. 788, 46 L.Ed.2d 645 (1976), but once again the opinion commanded the agreement of only three Justices (One Justice concurred in a separate opinion and three Justices concurred in the result).
I am of the opinion that the plurality in Nash and Colon stated the better rule. Declarations against interest are admitted under an exception to the rule against hearsay because the very fact that a statement is against the speaker’s interest provides the quantum of reliability need*504ed to overcome the hearsay rule’s bar to admissibility. See Chambers, 410 U.S. at 299, 93 S.Ct. at 1047 (the exception is “founded on the assumption that a person is unlikely to fabricate a statement against his own interest at the time it is made”). Were I free to do so, I would follow this rule and admit the hearsay statements of Rodriguez simply as declarations against his penal interest, letting the circumstances surrounding the declarations be considered by the trier of fact in weighing the evidence.
However, in the absence of an authoritative statement from oúr Supreme Court, this Court has either felt itself bound by Hackett, see Commonwealth v. Pompey, 248 Pa.Super. 410, 375 A.2d 163 (1977), or has at least required strong indicia of reliability generally as an admissibility condition, see Commonwealth v. Ayala, 277 Pa.Super. 363, 419 A.2d 1187 (1980). Even under Hackett, though, I would find the statements in the instant case admissible.
I emphasize that this case does not involve an attempt by one accomplice or codefendant to exonerate another, a situation which we properly view with considerable skepticism. Commonwealth v. Davis, 308 Pa.Super. 398, 454 A.2d 595 (1982); Commonwealth v. Ayala, supra. Nevertheless, the majority would exclude the proffered testimony. It appears the majority holds that the requisite indicia of reliability are lacking because the statement was not made to someone in authority or with an adverse interest and because it did not specifically refer to the same crime or specifically exculpate the appellant.
It is not necessarily fatal to admissibility, though, that the declarant made the statement to a friend or acquaintance. That was precisely the situation in Nash, where those members of the Court who would require indicia of reliability held that it was improper for the trial court to exclude the proffered evidence as a matter of law without allowing the defendant to demonstrate its reliability. In the words of the United States Supreme Court in Chambers, “[Declarant] stood to benefit nothing by disclosing his role *505... [to his friends], and he must have been aware of the possibility that disclosure would lead to criminal prosecution.” Chambers, 410 U.S. at 301, 93 S.Ct. at 1048. Indeed, in the instant case, the declarant’s inculpatory statement itself had the effect of placing the witness Tobias in an adverse position. Declarant disclosed his involvement in a burglary to Tobias while Tobias was driving him to Florida. It would then be quite reasonable for Tobias to become concerned that by assisting a possible felon in fleeing the jurisdiction, he could be guilty of the crime of hindering apprehension (18 Pa.C.S. § 5105). Therefore, the statements in question were made to someone with an adverse interest to the declarant.
The second issue, that of specificity, was addressed in Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 290 Pa.Super. 254, 264, 434 A.2d 740, 745 (1981), where this Court held that “only those admissions containing specific incriminating facts” are admissible. The declaration found inadmissible in Hutchinson consisted of a statement by the defendant Hutchinson’s brother to the effect that he had taken $600 in a robbery. No other details were given. Contrast this with the detailed statement of Rodriguez which described the premises, gave the street location, and related that in the course of the burglary, a woman in the house encountered declarant and screamed at him, whereupon he fled. Admittedly, declarant did not give an exact date or address and never said in so many words, “Bracero was not involved,” but it is unrealistic to expect such precision of language and it is not mandated by Hackett and Hutchinson. Hackett merely requires that the statement exculpate the defendant; it does not hold that this cannot be done circumstantially. Were this statement offered in a trial of declarant for the burglary at 225 South Tenth Street, Lebanon, on February 14, 1981, we would not hesitate to find that the jury could properly draw an inference of guilt based on this and other circumstantial evidence. Moreover, each of the facts con*506tained in declarant’s statement (the size of the house, the street location, the presence of a barber shop 1, the woman who screamed at the intruder) was corroborated by evidence admitted at trial of the facts and circumstances of the crime charged. In Chambers, the United States Supreme Court found such corroboration to be strong evidence of the statement’s reliability. Under the circumstances, the inference that the declarant and the witnesses who testified at trial described the same incident is nearly inescapable.
The proffered hearsay declaration, when read in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, clearly exculpates appellant Bracero. First, declarant did not state to Tobias that anyone else entered the home with him or was involved in the burglary in any way. Secondly, Bracero was not charged with conspiracy, and the Commonwealth did not attempt to establish at trial that others had acted in concert with him. A similar situation led the United States Supreme Court in Chambers to state that “[t]o the extent that [declarant’s] sworn confession tended to incriminate him, it tended also to exculpate Chambers.” 410 U.S. at 297, 93 S.Ct. at 1046. Finally, Tobias was also prepared to testify to a close physical resemblance between Bracero and the declarant. Such evidence would be relevant only if there were just one burglar and appellant sought to establish a defense of mistaken identity.
I would hold, therefore, that the declaration of Rodriguez against his penal interest more than meets the admissibility requirements of Hackett and that the trial judge abused his discretion in excluding the evidence. The probative value of this evidence is very high, and it was obviously central to appellant’s defense. Therefore, the case should be remanded for a new trial.
*507Although my conclusion is based on an interpretation of Hackett, further clarification of this area of the law by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would be desirable.

. Evidence at trial established that the shop in the front of the residence was a beauty parlor, not a barber shop. However, declarant’s mistake as to the probable gender of the customers of the shop is not nearly as significant as the fact that his identification of the business and general description of the building was closely corroborated by the evidence at trial.