State v. Cazares-Mendez

256 P.3d 104 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds were tried separately before different juries, although the same trial judge presided over both cases. Jessie Valero was found dead in her apartment. She had died from approximately 29 stab wounds. The apartment contained a red bicycle that Valero did not own, and the contents of her jewelry box had been emptied on the bed. José Lugardo-Madero, who was himself facing murder charges for Valero's death testified that he and Ds had unsuccessfully attempted to get methamphetamine. Later, he went with Ds to Valero's apartment complex. Ds intended to break into Valero's apartment and steal her jewelry. Reyes-Sanchez (D) had with him the red bicycle later found in the victim's apartment. Lugardo-Madero refused to go into the apartment and waited outside. After a while, Lugardo-Madero approached the apartment, heard noises, and fled. Roughly two hours later, Cazares-Mendez (D) arrived at the apartment where Lugardo-Madero was staying. He went into the bathroom, washed his clothes, and bathed. Approximately two hours after that, Reyes-Sanchez (D) arrived. Both Ds then left. Lugardo-Madero testified that he saw defendant Cazares-Mendez roughly a week later. Cazares-Mendez (D) admitted to Lugardo-Madero that he and Reyes-Sanchez (D) had murdered Valero. He threatened to kill Lugardo-Madero if he told anyone. Ds were indicted for two counts of aggravated murder, three counts of murder, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of first-degree burglary. They were tried separately. Ds attempted to offer evidence that another person, Tiffany Scherer, had confessed to the crime. Scherer had admitted committing the murder to four different witnesses on four separate occasions. Scherer’s confessions were, spontaneous. Scherer identified Valero as the woman to one person and to the others that a woman had been stabbed during an argument. Scherer included details in the confessions on the high number of stab wounds and that there was a robbery. One person was told that the victim had suffered a seizure. Valero had epilepsy. Three of the confessions occurred shortly after Valero’s death. At trial, Scherer denied stabbing Valero, and she denied telling any of the witnesses that she had stabbed Valero. Because the testimony was hearsay, Ds attempted to introduce the evidence under exceptions to the hearsay rule under 804(3)(c) and 803(28)(a). Cazares-Mendez (D) contended that the witnesses' testimony as to the statements by Scherer met almost all of the requirements of the 'statement against penal interest' exception, 804(3)(c). The trial court held that the 'corroborating circumstances' did not clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statements attributed to Scherer. Reyes-Sanchez (D) asserted that the testimony should be admitted under the residual hearsay exception, 803(28). The court held that the testimony did not meet the requirements of the statement against penal interest exception, 804(3)(c), because Scherer was available. The court elaborated on its conclusion that the 'statement against penal interest' exception did not apply, building from there to the conclusion that the residual hearsay exception did not apply either (under the near miss doctrine). The court held that the statements do not have the indicia of reliability. There was no trustworthiness that they're not the product of Tiffany Scherer - even if they were made, that they're not the product of Tiffany Scherer's drug-induced hallucinations. Because in all the situations here, she was acting in the manner that - that basically was indicative of somebody [who] was under the influence, and in at least two or maybe three of the occasions it's clear that that was what her state was. Ds were convicted on all counts. The Court of Appeals reversed. Ds asserted that the testimony met all the requirements of the 'statement against penal interest' exception to the hearsay rule, 804(3)(c), except the unavailability requirement. Ds contended, that it would violate due process to prohibit Ds from presenting trustworthy evidence merely because the declarant, Scherer, was available. The Court of Appeals agreed. The corroborating circumstances clearly indicated the trustworthiness of the statements Scherer had confessed to stabbing a female victim to death on four separate occasions to four different witnesses. Neither Scherer nor the witnesses had any motivation to lie; Scherer had no reason to falsely claim to have killed Valero, and three of the four witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate Scherer in the murder. The statements to the witnesses were consistent, and in some places included details that were peculiar to this murder. The crime scene showed evidence of a burglary, and Scherer had stated that she had attempted to cover up the murder by making it look like a burglary or robbery. P appealed.