Statements Against Interest and Hearsay under Evidence Law
Statements Against Interest and Hearsay under Evidence Law
Overview
Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible as evidence because it is considered unreliable—the declarant is not present for cross-examination.
However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, one of which is the Statement Against Interest.
1. What is Hearsay?
Definition: A statement made outside the court offered to prove the truth of what it asserts.
Example: A witness testifies, "John told me he committed the theft." This is hearsay if used to prove John’s guilt.
General Rule: Hearsay is inadmissible because the original speaker is not present for questioning.
2. Statements Against Interest: Exception to Hearsay
A statement against interest is a statement made by a person that is so prejudicial or damaging to their own interest that a reasonable person would not have made it unless it were true.
This makes such statements inherently trustworthy and thus admissible as an exception to hearsay.
Elements of Statement Against Interest
The statement must be against the declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest.
The declarant must be unavailable to testify (depending on jurisdiction).
The statement must be voluntary and not made under coercion.
The nature of the statement is such that a reasonable person would not make it unless they believed it was true.
Why Are Statements Against Interest Admissible?
Because the statement tends to expose the declarant to liability or disadvantage, courts assume it is more likely to be truthful. A person is unlikely to make false statements that harm themselves.
Case Law Illustrations
1. Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892)
Facts: The case involved a letter written by a missing man stating his intention to travel with another man.
Issue: Whether the letter could be admitted as evidence under the statement against interest exception.
Judgment: The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the letter as a statement against interest, establishing the doctrine.
Principle: Out-of-court statements that are against the declarant’s interest may be admitted as an exception to hearsay.
2. Tuer v. State, 239 Ind. 379 (1962)
Facts: A defendant made statements implicating himself in a crime but was unavailable to testify.
Issue: Whether the statements were admissible as statements against penal interest.
Judgment: The court admitted the statements, recognizing that statements exposing a person to criminal liability can be exceptions to hearsay.
Principle: Statements against penal interest have strong reliability and are admissible.
3. R. v. Andrews, (1994) 3 SCR 167 (Canada)
Facts: A statement made by a deceased person against their own interest was offered.
Issue: Whether the statement could be admitted under hearsay exceptions.
Judgment: The court established guidelines for admitting statements against interest, emphasizing necessity and reliability.
Principle: Reliability and corroboration are key factors in admitting statements against interest.
Difference Between Statement Against Interest and Admission by Party Opponent
Statement Against Interest: Made by any person and is against their own interest.
Admission by Party Opponent: Made by a party to the litigation and offered against them.
The former can be from a non-party, the latter is a party’s own statement.
Limitations and Safeguards
Courts often require that the declarant be unavailable before admitting a statement against interest.
The statement must be sufficiently against interest (not just minor or ambiguous).
Corroboration may be required for statements against penal interest due to their high stakes.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Hearsay Rule | Out-of-court statements offered for truth are inadmissible. |
| Exception: Statement Against Interest | Statements so damaging to the declarant that they are presumed truthful. |
| Types of Interests | Pecuniary (money), proprietary (property), penal (criminal liability). |
| Requirements | Declarant unavailable, statement truly against interest, voluntary. |
| Key Cases | Hillmon, Tuer v. State, R. v. Andrews. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments