RULE 804. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; DECLARANT UNAVAILABLE
(a) Definition of unavailability. "Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant --
(1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement;
(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so;
(3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement;
(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b) (2), (3), or (4), the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means.
A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if the declarant's exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
(b) Hearsay exceptions.
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former testimony.
Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
(2) Statement under belief of impending death. A statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of the declarant's belief in impending death.
(3) Statement against interest. A statement that:
was at the time of its making so far contrary
to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant
to civil or criminal liability or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another or
to make the declarant an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable person in
the declarant's position would not have made the statement without believing it to be true.
A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the
accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement. A statement or confession offered against the accused in a
criminal case, made by a codefendant or other person implicating both the declarant and the
accused, is not within this exception.
(A) a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant's claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and
(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
(4) Statement of personal or family history.
(i) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, parentage, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or
(ii) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.
(5) [Transferred to Rule 807]
(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.
Rule 804 was amended, effective March 1, 1990; March 1, 2000; ______________.
Rule 804 is taken in the main from the Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974).
Subdivision (b)(3) differs from the comparable federal rule
by excluding from this
exception statements made by a codefendant which implicate both the codefendant and
the accused. Such statements may not be against interest, and the area is one in which
constitutional rights of the defendant may preclude their admission. Rather than proceed
on a case-by-case basis, it was decided to preclude admission of such statements
Paragraph (b)(3) was amended, effective ____________, to provide that the corroborating circumstances requirement applies to all declarations against penal interest offered in criminal cases.
Rule 804 was amended, effective March 1, 2000, to follow the December 1, 1997, federal amendment. The contents of Rule 804(b)(5) are transferred to new Rule 807. The addition of Rule 804(b)(6) provides for forfeiture of the right to object on hearsay grounds due to a party's own wrongdoing.
Sources: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes
of January 29-30, 2011, pages________;
September 24-25, 1998, page 4; April 30-May 1, 1999, page 16; March 24-25, 1988,
page 12; December 3, 1987, page 15; April 8, 1976, pages 9, 10, 11, 12; October 1, 1975,
page 8. Rule 804(a), (b)(4), Federal Rules of Evidence; Rule 804(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3),
(b)(6), Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974); Rule 804, SBAND proposal.