State v. Griffin Case Brief
LSD Deep Dive ∘ Audio Lesson
A two-host discussion of this case - listen on your commute or between classes
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defendant sought to admit a police report containing a witness’s account of a victim’s dying declaration. The court ruled the statement inadmissible as double hearsay because the witness who heard the declaration was also unavailable, rendering his portion of the statement unreliable.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the rule for double hearsay (hearsay within hearsay), holding that each level of hearsay must independently satisfy a recognized exception. The unavailability of an intermediary declarant, without a separate exception for their statement, fatally undermines the evidence’s reliability.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The defendant, Griffin, was charged with shooting and killing Tiche Carter. After being shot, Carter allegedly ran to the apartment of William Thomas and, just before dying, told Thomas that “Dennis” had shot him. This statement represents the first level of hearsay. Subsequently, Thomas relayed Carter’s statement to a police investigator, who included it in the official police report. This represents the second level of hearsay. Prior to trial, Thomas died, making him unavailable to testify. The defendant sought to introduce the police report containing Thomas’s account of Carter’s statement. The defendant argued that Carter’s statement qualified as a dying declaration under La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(2) and that Thomas was an unavailable declarant. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to admit the statement, and the court of appeal denied the State’s request for review. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a statement contained within a police report admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when it recounts a victim’s purported dying declaration, but the intermediary witness who heard that declaration is also deceased and thus unavailable for cross-examination?
Reversed. The statement is inadmissible. Even if the victim’s statement to the witness qualified as a dying declaration, the witness’s subsequent statement to police constitutes a second layer of hearsay that does not meet any exception and lacks the requisite indicia of reliability because the witness is unavailable for cross-examination.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Legal Issue
Is a statement contained within a police report admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule when it recounts a victim’s purported dying declaration, but the intermediary witness who heard that declaration is also deceased and thus unavailable for cross-examination?
Conclusion
This case provides a clear application of the rule against double hearsay, establishing that the unavailability of an intermediary declarant breaks the chain of admissibility unless that declarant’s statement also falls under a distinct hearsay exception.
Legal Rule
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided by legislation. (La. Code Evid. art. 805).
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the statement was inadmissible double hearsay. The court’s analysis focused on La. Code Evid. art. 805, which requires that for “hearsay included within hearsay” to be admitted, each distinct out-of-court statement must independently qualify for a hearsay exception. The evidence at issue contained two layers of hearsay: 1) Carter’s statement to Thomas, and 2) Thomas’s statement to the police investigator, as recorded in the report.
The court acknowledged that the first layer—Carter’s statement—might have qualified as a dying declaration under La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(2). However, it found the second layer to be fatally defective. Thomas’s statement to the police did not fall under any recognized hearsay exception. Crucially, because Thomas was deceased, he could not be cross-examined. Citing its reasoning in Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., the court stressed that the fundamental purpose of the hearsay rule is to ensure reliability by allowing the fact-finder to evaluate a witness’s “perception, memory, narration, and sincerity.” Without the ability to cross-examine Thomas, the jury had no way to assess the credibility of his account of what Carter said. This complete absence of an opportunity to test Thomas’s reliability meant his statement lacked the necessary “indicia of reliability” to justify an exception. Because the second layer of hearsay failed, the entire combined statement was inadmissible.
The Opinion
Summary
- The court considered whether a dying declaration (hearsay level 1) recounted by a now-deceased witness to police (hearsay level 2) is admissible.
- Holding: The statement is inadmissible double hearsay. Under La. Code Evid. art. 805, each level of hearsay requires its own exception.
- The intermediary witness’s statement to police lacked reliability and an applicable exception, breaking the evidentiary chain.
Full text
Complete unedited opinion text as published by the court
1,WRIT GRANTED.
The State charged defendant with shooting and mortally wounding Patrick Parker and Tiche Carter. After being shot, Carter ran to the apartment of William Thomas and purportedly told him just before dying that Dennis shot him. Subsequently, Thomas related Carter’s statement to the police investigator who included the statement in the police report. Five days prior to defendant’s trial, Thomas died. After a mistrial was declared in the first trial of defendant, a motion was filed by him seeking to have Thomas declared unavailable and requesting that Thomas’s statement to the police be admissible as a dying declaration under La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(2).
The State contends that the lower courts have improperly sanctioned the use of 1 ^double hearsay,
In Buckbee v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., Inc., 561 So.2d 76 (La.1990), we reasoned:
In its broadest sweep, the hearsay rule excludes all testimony regarding statements made out-of-court by declar-ants who at the time of making the statements were not under oath, not in the presence of the trier of fact, and thus not subject to cross-examination. By excluding testimony which fails these three requirements, the hearsay rule increases the reliability of in-court testimony, and seeks to admit only that testimony which the fact-finder can evaluate for the witness’s perception, memory, narration, and sincerity. 4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence 800-1 to 800-5 (1988).
Buckbee, 561 So.2d at 80.
Although Carter’s statement to Thomas may have been a dying declaration, Thomas’s testimony is unavailable for evaluation by the fact-finder as to his perception, memory, narration, and sincerity. Thus, the reliability needed to justify an exception to the hearsay rule is fatally lacking. There is no indicia of reliability.
Accordingly, the judgments of the lower courts are reversed and set aside. It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that defendant’s motion requesting that Thomas’s statement to the police be admissible as a dying declaration is denied. Our stay order issued on March 5, 2001, in this matter is recalled and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: ... (2) A statement made by a de-clarant while believing that his death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what he believed to be his impending death.” La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(2).
. "Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided by legislation.” La. Code Evid. art. 805.