Donnelly v. United States
228 U.S. 243 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the common law, the exception to the rule against hearsay for declarations against interest is limited to statements against pecuniary or proprietary interest and does not extend to declarations against penal interest.
Facts:
- Chickasaw, a Klamath Tribe Indian, was shot and mortally wounded.
- The killing occurred within the exterior limits of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation Extension in California.
- Donnelly, a white man, was charged with the murder of Chickasaw.
- Prior to trial, another man, an Indian named Joe Dick, allegedly confessed to killing Chickasaw.
- Joe Dick died from consumption before Donnelly's trial.
- Donnelly sought to introduce evidence of Dick's confession, along with circumstantial evidence pointing to Dick's guilt, such as tracks leading from the crime scene toward Dick's camp.
Procedural Posture:
- Donnelly was indicted for murder in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, a federal trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Donnelly.
- The trial court sentenced Donnelly to life imprisonment.
- Donnelly appealed his conviction to the United States Supreme Court by a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an out-of-court confession by a deceased third party, which would subject the declarant to criminal liability, admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay to exculpate a defendant on trial for that crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Pitney
No. A third party's out-of-court confession to a crime is inadmissible hearsay and does not fall within the declaration against interest exception. The court reasoned that the rule against hearsay is a fundamental principle of common law, designed to ensure reliability through oath and cross-examination. While there are exceptions, the exception for declarations against interest has been almost universally limited by courts to statements against pecuniary or proprietary interests. The court held that a statement subjecting the declarant to criminal liability (a penal interest) is not sufficient to qualify for the exception, citing a long line of English and American state court precedents. Adhering to its own precedent in cases like Mima Queen v. Hepburn, the Court expressed its reluctance to create new exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding the evidence of Joe Dick's confession was properly excluded.
Dissenting - Justice Holmes
Yes. A deceased person's confession to a crime, especially when coupled with circumstances pointing to its truth, should be admissible. Justice Holmes argued that the rules of evidence should be based on logic and common sense, not just historical precedent. He contended that no statement is more profoundly against one's interest than a confession to murder, making it far more inherently reliable and convincing than other established hearsay exceptions, like dying declarations. Given the numerous safeguards afforded to the accused, the dissent argued that a defendant should have the benefit of such powerful, exculpatory evidence. The dissent concluded that excluding the confession was a rigid application of a rule that defied common sense and could lead to convicting an innocent person.
Analysis:
This case firmly established the federal common law rule that the hearsay exception for declarations against interest did not encompass declarations against penal interest. The majority's holding reflected a traditional, strict construction of evidentiary rules, prioritizing procedural safeguards over the admission of potentially reliable but out-of-court evidence. However, Justice Holmes's famous and influential dissent championed a more pragmatic, common-sense approach, which heavily influenced later legal thought and reforms. This decision and its dissent mark a critical point in the evolution of evidence law, ultimately paving the way for the adoption of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), which now explicitly allows for the admission of statements against penal interest under corroborating circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Donnelly v. United States