Chapter 3 - §10. Exception—Declaration against interest

• Jurisdiction: United States

§10. Exception—Declaration against interest

A person's out-of-court statement that is contrary to the person's self-interest is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Evid. C. §1230.

§10.1. Overview. The declaration-against-interest exception is based on the rationale that no one will speak negatively about himself unless convinced that the statement is true. See People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 710-11; 1 Witkin, California Evidence (5th ed.), Hearsay §144. The exception is limited to situations where the declarant is unavailable. Evid. C. §1230; see 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n Rep. (1965) p. 1228. A nonparty's declaration against interest is usually introduced for one of two reasons: either by the prosecution if the nonparty's declaration implicates the defendant in the crime (e.g., a declaration by an accomplice or an accessory), or by the defense to show third-party culpability (i.e., that another person committed the crime).

Note Declarations against interest are distinguishable from admissions by a party-opponent in two ways. First, declarations against interest can be introduced by or against anyone, while admissions can only be introduced against a party. Second, declarations against interest are admissible only if the statement is contrary to the declarant's self-interest, while admissions are not subject to this limitation. See "Nature of statement," ch. 3-B, §5.2.2(1).

§10.2. Requirements for exception. For a declaration against interest to be admissible as a hearsay exception, the following criteria must be met:

1. Declarant had knowledge of statement's content. The declarant must have "sufficient knowledge of the subject" of the statement. Evid. C. §1230. This means that the declarant had some specific means (e.g., personal observation) to obtain accurate knowledge of the subject matter of the statement. 7 Cal. Law Revision Comm'n Rep. (1965) p. 1228-29; see, e.g., People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 123-24 (appellate court erred in excluding declarant's statements that suggested D knew of and went along with plan to shoot victim; ample evidence existed for trier of fact to conclude declarant had personal knowledge of D's involvement).

2. Statement was against declarant's interest. The statement, when made, must have been contrary to the declarant's self-interest. Under Evid. C. §1230, a statement can be contrary to the declarant's interest in one of the following ways:

(1) Contrary to financial interest. The declarant's statement must be so "contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest" that a reasonable person in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. Evid. C. §1230.

(2) Created risk of legal liability. The declarant's statement must have subjected the declarant to the risk of civil or criminal liability so that a reasonable person in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. Evid. C. §1230; see People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 143-44; see, e.g., People v. Flinner (2020) 10 Cal.5th 686, 736 (statements D made to his friend suggesting D killed the victim or had the victim killed admitted culpability for murder and were contrary to penal interests); People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 207-08 (statement made by D's boyfriend to cellmate about his involvement with torture and murder; lower court did not err in finding that statement subjected boyfriend to risk of criminal liability); People v. Vasquez (3d Dist.2012) 205 Cal. App.4th 609, 618-19 (statement made by co-D to police officer that gun was not involved in alleged crime and that D punched victim on side of head was not disserving to co-D; statement related only to D's culpability and lacked indicia of trustworthiness). In most criminal cases, the offered statement is purportedly against the declarant's penal interest (as opposed to his financial interest or social standing). To make a statement against penal interest, the declarant must know, when making the statement, that he is exposing himself to criminal liability. See People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 536; People v. Jackson (1st Dist.1991) 235...