Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 11, 1990; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The defendant was convicted of simple burglary of a vehicle under La.R.S. 14:62 and sentenced to 12 years at hard labor as a multiple offender. The only contention on appeal was that the trial court improperly barred testimony from Terry Gorman concerning statements from her brother. The court affirmed the conviction. Testimony established that on February 7, 1988, Howard Anderson's car was stolen while he was bowling. Officer Williams reported responding to a complaint about a vehicle being stripped, witnessing three individuals running into an apartment upon police arrival. The defendant, identified by the officers, opened the door wearing only shorts. Gorman, the defendant’s girlfriend, stated she left her apartment around 9:00 p.m. and returned to find the defendant handcuffed. Although her testimony was interrupted by a hearsay objection, she suggested her neighbor’s sons might have been involved in the car stripping. Gorman claimed her brother was later implicated but faced another hearsay objection when attempting to elaborate on his statements. The defense argued the brother's statement should qualify as a declaration against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule. However, no evidence or testimony was presented to support this claim. The excerpt discussed the legal definitions and precedents regarding hearsay and declarations against penal interest, emphasizing the necessity of the declarant's unavailability and the reliability of the statement for it to be admissible.
The declarant confessed to murdering a police officer multiple times, including a sworn statement to defense counsel and three spontaneous self-incriminatory statements to acquaintances shortly after the incident, all corroborated by independent evidence. Key corroborating factors included the declarant's ownership of the murder weapon, presence at the crime scene, and being seen with a gun during the murder. Although the declarant later retracted these confessions, the Supreme Court deemed the statements trustworthy and admissible under the declaration against penal interest exception. In a related case, State v. Gilmore, the Louisiana Supreme Court found another confession admissible due to corroborating evidence and the unavailability of the declarant at trial. Conversely, in State v. Rushing, the court excluded a statement lacking corroboration and deemed it not self-incriminating, while in State v. Adams, a delayed confession made years after the crime was excluded due to reliability concerns.
In the current case, the defense's proffered testimony from Ms. Gorman's brother was deemed inadmissible as it lacked reliability and corroboration linking him to the crime. The trial court correctly refused hearsay testimony related to his alleged exonerating statement. Despite objections from the State, Ms. Gorman's testimony about her brother's claims regarding the defendant's involvement was allowed, and the jury was informed of these circumstances. The court found no merit in the assignment and affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence.
