State v. Moon

“A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” OEC 804(3)(c)

Defendant appeals from judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of DUII, reckless driving, and recklessly endangering another person. Defendant brought two assignments of error, arguing the trial court erred by excluding Bishop’s hearsay statements. Defendant argued they were admissible under the OEC 804(3)(c) exception to hearsay for statements against interest. A Toyota with two passengers drove over a curb, hitting a parked car and causing property damage. The witness who called 911 reported the tallest of the three people in the car was driving. Deputy Dodds responded and Defendant claimed he had been the driver. Three weeks after Defendant’s arrest and a week before his arraignment, Bishop, a claimed passenger in the car, called the DA and claimed to be the actual driver. Defendant attempted to introduce the conversation into evidence at trial. The trial court excluded Bishop’s statements as hearsay because there was insufficient corroborating circumstances. “A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” OEC 804(3)(c). The Court reasoned the statements by Bishop were against his penal interest because they were made after criminal charges had already been brought against Defendant and Bishop had been read his Miranda rights. The Court also reasoned Bishop’s statements were corroborated by the 911 caller, the fact Bishop admitted on at least two separate occasions he was the driver, and Bishop’s statements included other details of the accident. The Court concluded the error was not harmless because it was qualitatively different from what the jury had heard. Reversed and remanded.