Dying declaration

Last updated

In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may in common law nonetheless be admitted as evidence in criminal law trials because it constituted the last words of a dying person. The rationale is that someone who is dying or believes death to be imminent would have less incentive to fabricate testimony, and as such, the hearsay statement carries with it some reliability.

Contents

History

In medieval English courts, the principle originated of Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri— "no-one on the point of death should be presumed to be lying". [1] An incident in which a dying declaration was admitted as evidence has been found in a 1202 case. [2]

Tests for admissibility

In common law, a "dying declaration" must be a statement made by a deceased person who would otherwise have been a credible witness to their own death by murder or manslaughter, and was of "settled hopeless expectation of death". [3]

England and Wales

The admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings has been governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which effectively replaced the common law regime and abolished all common law hearsay exceptions (except those preserved by s.118) including the dying declaration exception. An original statement made by a dead person may now be admissible under the statutory "unavailability" exception (ss.114 & 116) subject to the courts' judicial discretion (preserved by s.126) to exclude unreliable evidence (i.e. the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value).

United States

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, [4] a dying declaration is admissible if the proponent of the statement can establish all of the following:

Other general rules of admissibility also apply, such as the requirement that the declaration must be based on the declarant's actual knowledge.

The statement must relate to the circumstances or the cause of the declarant's own impending death. For example, in the dying declaration of Clifton Chambers in 1988, he stated that ten years earlier, he had helped his son bury a man whom the son had killed by accident. The statement was sufficient cause to justify a warrant for a search on the son's property, and the man's body was indeed found. However, there was no physical evidence of a crime, and since Chambers was not the victim, his dying declaration was not admissible as evidence, and the son was never brought to trial. [1]

The first use of the dying declaration exception in American law was in the 1770 murder trial of the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre. One of the victims, Patrick Carr, told his doctor before he died that the soldiers had been provoked. The doctor's testimony helped defense attorney John Adams to secure acquittals for some of the defendants and reduced charges for the rest. [5]

If the defendant is convicted of homicide but the reliability of the dying declaration is in question, there is grounds for an appeal. [6]

The future of the dying declaration doctrine in light of Supreme Court opinions such as Crawford v. Washington (2004) is unclear (Crawford was decided under the constitution's Confrontation Clause, not the common law). Opinions such as Giles v. California (2008) discuss the matter (although the statements in Giles were not a dying declaration), but Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent to Michigan v. Bryant (2011) that the court has not addressed whether the dying declaration exception is valid after the confrontation clause cases.

Criticism

Since the nineteenth century, critics have questioned the credibility of dying declarations. In a state court case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered the issue of a dying declaration. The defense pointed out that "this kind of evidence is not regarded with favor." [7] The defense argued that several factors could undermine the reliability of dying declarations:

Physical or mental weakness consequent upon the approach of death, a desire of self-vindication, or a disposition to impute the responsibility for a wrong to another, as well as the fact that the declarations are made in the absence of the accused, and often in response to leading questions and direct suggestions, and with no opportunity for cross-examination: all these considerations conspire to render such declarations a dangerous kind of evidence. [8]

India

Dying declarations are allowed as evidence in Indian courts if the dying person is conscious of their danger, they have given up hopes of recovery, the death of the dying person is the subject of the charge and of the dying declaration, and if the dying person was capable of a religious sense of accountability to their Maker. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affidavit</span> Written legal statement, made under oath

An affidavit is a written statement voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation which is administered by a person who is authorized to do so by law. Such a statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

A present sense impression, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person that conveys his or her sense of the state of an event or the condition of something. The statement must be spontaneously made while the person was perceiving the event or condition, or "immediately thereafter." The permissible time lapse between event and statement may range from seconds to minutes, but probably not hours. The subject matter and content of the statement are limited to descriptions or explanations of the event or condition, therefore opinions, inferences, or conclusions about the event or condition are not present sense impressions. An example of present sense impression is of a person saying, "it's cold" or "we're going really fast".

An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event". It is an exception to the hearsay rule. The statement must be spontaneously made by the person while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" the event or condition in question. The statement could be a description or explanation, or an opinion or inference. Examples include: "Look out! We're going to crash!" or "I think he's crazy. He's shooting at us!" The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be a premeditated falsehood. Compared to present sense impression, excited utterance is broader in scope for permitting a longer time lapse between event and statement, and a wider range of content in the statement.

The party admission, in the law of evidence, is a type of statement that appears to be hearsay but is generally exempted (excluded) from the definition of hearsay because it was made by a party to the litigation adverse to the party introducing it into evidence.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil cases or other proceedings. Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial. The Fourteenth Amendment makes the right to confrontation applicable to the states and not just the federal government.

Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

In United States law, a declarationagainst interest is an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true. For example, if a driver in an automobile accident boasts publicly that they were speeding, it may represent a legal admission of liability. The Federal Rules of evidence limit the bases of prejudices to the declarant to tort and criminal liability. Some states, such as California, extend the prejudice to "hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community." It is analogous to the criminal equivalent, the statement against penal interest which is a statement that puts the person making the statement at risk of prosecution. In the United States federal court system and many state courts, statements against interest by individuals who are not available to be called at trial may be admitted as evidence where in other circumstances they would be excluded as hearsay.

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The business records exception to the U.S. hearsay rule is based on Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). It is sometimes referred to as the business entry rule.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is not hearsay only if the statement was made before the motive to fabricate arose.

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may not enforce its rules of evidence, such as rules excluding hearsay, in a fashion that disallows a criminal defendant from presenting reliable exculpatory evidence and thus denies the defendant a fair trial.

Holtzman v. Hellenbrand (1983) was a case in the U.S. state of New York concerning the admissibility of a prior statement by a person who later refused to testify in court. American law assures a defendant an opportunity to confront people testifying against them, but prohibits a person from profiting by their wrongdoing so should not be able to avoid the statement if they criminally induced the person to not testify in court.

References

  1. 1 2 "Last Words Archived 8 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine ", Brendan I. Koerner, Legal Affairs, November/December 2002. Fetched from URL on 9 May 2011.
  2. 1 2 "Dying Declaration - A Man Will Not Meet His Maker with a Lie in His Mouth", Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, SSRN, 25 February 2010. In turn, this paper's reference to the 1202 date cites "M.N. Howard, "Phipson on Evidence", 15th edn., Sweet & Maxwell, 2000 at Pg. 886." Note: A number of sentences in this SSRN paper seem to be identical to the "Legal Affairs" article by Koerner, without citing Koerner. I do not know how much this impugns this source.
  3. ↑ Adrian Zuckerman; Paul Roberts (26 August 2010). Criminal Evidence. Oxford University Press. p. 430. ISBN   9780199231645 . Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  4. ↑ "Dying Declaration". Legal Information Institute . Cornell Law School . Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  5. ↑ "Funeral costs". No. 11–june–2006.
  6. ↑ Dying declaration unreliable: SC acquits two.
  7. ↑ State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299, 303 (1877)
  8. ↑ Orenstein, Aviva (2010). "Her Last Words: Dying Declarations and Modern Confrontation Jurisprudence" (PDF). University of Illinois Law Review. 2010 (5): 1411. Retrieved 18 January 2020.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.