State v. Garrison
| Decision Date | 25 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 39169,39169 |
| Citation | 427 P.2d 1012,71 Wn.2d 312 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Charles Rudolph GARRISON, Appellant. |
Tonkoff, Holst & Hanson, J. P. Tonkoff, Yakima, for appellant.
Lincoln E. Shropshire, Pros. Atty., Donald R. Shaw, Deputy Pros. Atty., Yakima, for respondent.
*
Charles Rudolph Garrison appeals from a conviction of burglary in the second degree. Appellant was observed by witnesses aiding one Cecil Pinkerton in removing beer from the back door of a tavern and placing it in an automobile at 6 a.m. on September 5, 1965, in Yakima. The police were notified and a police officer followed appellant and his companion as they drove away from the tavern. The car was stopped and, with permission of appellant who was driving, a search was made and four cases of beer were found in the back of the car. Soon thereafter an officer discovered that the front door of the tavern had been forced open, some beer stolen and some damage done to a music machine and cigarette machine in an effort to break them open. Appellant and Pinkerton were then placed under arrest.
During the trial appellant made an offer to prove by the testimony of an officer that Pinkerton told the officer who first stopped the car that the beer belonged to him; that he had purchased it and intended to bootleg it the next day. Appellant also offered to prove that, in an interview a few days after the arrest, Pinkerton had again told an officer that appellant had nothing to do with acquiring the beer and that a metal tent stake and bolt found in the car belonged to him. Introduction of such evidence was refused by the trial court after objection by the prosecuting attorney.
Appellant contends that the proffered testimony should have been received as a confession or declaration by a third person against penal interest. A majority of courts hold that the extrajudicial declarations of a third party that he committed the crime, not made under oath, are hearsay and, even though they are declarations against interest, are inadmissible. Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913); 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 749, p. 1115. The principle is alluded to in the case of State v. Smythe, 148 Wash. 65, 268 P. 133 (1928).
A number of courts have recognized incriminating statements by a third person to be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule as statements against penal interest of the declarant, and therefore worthy of belief. No distinction is made between declarations of criminal culpability and the commonly admitted declarations against pecuniary and proprietary interests. It is held that a man is unlikely to speak falsely to his own hurt and the element of self interest affords a reasonably safe substitute for the oath and cross-examination as a guarantee of the truth. Hines v Commonwealth, 136 Va. 728, 117 S.E. 843, 35 A.L.R. 431 (1923); Newberry v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 445, 61 S.E.2d 318 (1950); People v. Spriggs, 60 Cal.2d 868, 36 Cal.Rptr. 841, 389 P.2d 377 (1964); Holmes dissenting in Donnelly v. United States, supra; People v. Lettrich, 413 Ill. 172, 108 N.E.2d 488 (1952); Brady v. State, 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167 (1961); 167 A.L.R. Annot. 394; ALI Model Code of Evidence, Rule 501 at 225 (1942); 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1476 (3d ed. 1940) at 281. Appellant urges we adopt this second rule.
We find it unnecessary to determine the admissibility of such confessions or declarations because the statements of Pinkerton were not declarations against penal interest. He did not admit participation in the burglary. The statement that he owned and had purchased the beer found in the car was not the admission of an unlawful act. It was rather a statement tending to exculpate him from any connection with the burglary. Likewise, the later statement relative to the ownership of the articles in the car was not against Pinkerton's penal interest but only a statement absolving appellant from any inference of ownership of the articles.
It is the common experience of mankind that persons do not voluntarily admit to facts for which they may be punished unless such statements are true. It is this element which has led some courts to justify an extension of the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule. The element is absent in this case. Pinkerton did not admit to participation by any crime for which he could be punished. His statements were more nearly an attempt to absolve both himself and appellant from connection with the burglary.
It should also be noted that no reason was given why Pinkerton was not subpoenaed and no showing was made that he would not testify in accordance with the statements allegedly made by him. A majority of the courts permitting declarations of third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Quigg
...offered, so that the court may rule on such contentions, consider such theories, and thus avoid committing error. State v. Garrison, 71 Wash.2d 312, 315, 427 P.2d 1012 (1967). Although, as noted above, errors of constitutional magnitude may be raised for the first time on appeal, evidentiar......
-
State v. O'Clair
...with the burglary. Exculpatory statements do not come within the concept of declarations against penal interest. State v. Garrison, 1967, 71 Wash.2d 312, 427 P.2d 1012. The appellant filed a motion for a new trial on the usual grounds that the presiding Justice should have ordered the entry......
-
State v. Farr-Lenzini
...guilt, whether by direct statement or by inference. State v. Black, 109 Wash.2d 336, 348, 745 P.2d 12 (1987); State v. Garrison, 71 Wash.2d 312, 315, 427 P.2d 1012 (1967). Such an opinion would invade the jury's independent determination of the facts and violate the defendant's constitution......
-
State v. Kirkman
...this court's precedent that it is improper for any witness to express a personal opinion on the defendant's guilt. State v. Garrison, 71 Wash.2d 312, 315, 427 P.2d 1012 (1967); State v. Trombley, 132 Wash. 514, 518, 232 P. 326 2. Actual Prejudice ¶ 60 It also appears from the respective rec......
-
Inculpatory Statements Against Penal Interest: State v. Parris Goes Too Far
...813, 821-24 (1942) (setting out the traditional theory of this exception and outlining the common law requirements). 65. 71 Wash. 2d 312, 427 P.2d 1012 (1967). Garrison was charged with burglary in the second degree. He was stopped in a car that was carrying four cases of beer that had been......
-
The Admissibility of Cell Site Location Information in Washington Courts
...122. See, e.g., State v. Black, 745 P.2d 12, 19 (Wash. 1987); State v. Garrison, 427 P.2d 1012, 1015 (Wash. 1967); McPherson, 46 P.3d at 293. 123. Alice B. Lustre, Annotation, Post-Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and Other Expert Evidence in State Courts, 90 A.L.R. 5th 453......