U.S. v. Benton, 57 M.J. 24

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Statement against interest

1. to gain admission of exculpatory hearsay testimony under Mil.R.Evid 804(b)(3), it is appellant’s burden to show, inter alia, that: (1) the declarant was unavailable to testify at trial, (2) the statement was against the declarant’s penal interest, and (3) corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement
2. appellant failed to show out-of-court statement was actually against declarant’s penal interests; it did not sufficiently expose declarant to criminal liability to the extent that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true; the statement was evasive on its face and fell far short of an unambiguous admission to coercing appellant to commit a crime by pointing a gun at him; and the declarant attempted to diminish his culpability by blaming his conduct on overindulgence in alcohol
3. exculpatory hearsay testimony under offered Mil.R.Evid 804(b)(3) must have corroborating circumstances which clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the out-of-court statement
4. appellant had a heavy burden to establish corroborating circumstances clearly indicating the trustworthiness of exculpatory hearsay testimony offered under Mil.R.Evid 804(b)(3)
5. the record failed to support the trustworthiness of exculpatory hearsay testimony offered under Mil.R.Evid 804(b)(3) because: (1) the out-of-court declarant had a motive for misrepresentation; (2) in view of the numerous serious offenses charged against the declarant, there was a low probability he would ever be additionally charged or punished for aggravated assault on his appellant or perjury: (3) nobody else heard the statement; (4) the statement was made in circumstances suggesting that it was mere jailhouse braggadocio; and (5) the purported statement was not made spontaneously

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Rule of Completeness

1. under the rule of completeness in Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2), proffered testimony that appellant said he was threatened at the time of an alleged kidnapping was admissible; this exculpatory statement was part of appellant’s purported confession, otherwise evidenced on direct examination by the Government’s witness
2. error in excluding part of appellant’s purported confession (Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2)) was harmless where: (1) appellant himself was allowed to testify that his participation in the kidnapping was coerced and that he did not sodomize the victim; (2) the corroborative value of the excluded evidence that appellant told a fellow pretrial confinee sometime after the crime the same exculpatory story was not great; and (3) any corrective value which the excluded evidence might have had to prevent the members from thinking appellant had confessed was largely minimized by appellant’s own testimony which denied the conversation with the fellow pretrial confinee

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. error in excluding part of appellant’s purported confession (Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2)) was harmless where: (1) appellant himself was allowed to testify that his participation in the kidnapping was coerced and that he did not sodomize the victim; (2) the corroborative value of the excluded evidence that appellant told a fellow pretrial confinee sometime after the crime the same exculpatory story was not great; and (3) any corrective value which the excluded evidence might have had to prevent the members from thinking appellant had confessed was largely minimized by appellant’s own testimony which denied the conversation with the fellow pretrial confinee