State v. Sua
60 P.3d 1234 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Washington Evidence Rule (ER) 801(d)(1)(i), a witness's prior inconsistent statement may only be admitted as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the statement was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury. A statement merely signed with an attestation that it is 'true and correct' does not meet this requirement.
Facts:
- In December 2000, Elemene Tinie Sua lived in a motel room with Karen Williams and her daughters, including 16-year-old S.S.
- On December 5, 2000, S.S. told her mother, Williams, that Sua had taken indecent liberties with her by putting his hands down her pants.
- Williams and her daughters went to the motel office, and S.S.'s older sister, A.S., called 911.
- When police deputies arrived, S.S. repeated her allegations, stating Sua had kissed her, groped her breasts and buttocks, and put his hands down her pants.
- Sua denied wrongdoing but also suggested he might have touched S.S. by mistake while they were on the bed, thinking she was Williams.
- At the deputies' request, S.S. and Williams each provided a written statement documenting the allegations against Sua.
- Neither S.S. nor Williams signed their statements under oath or penalty of perjury, although each signed below a printed line stating, 'The above is a true and correct statement to the best of my knowledge.'
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Elemene Tinie Sua in Pierce County trial court with indecent liberties by forcible compulsion.
- At a jury trial, the State's key witnesses, S.S. and her mother Karen Williams, recanted their initial allegations and testified that Sua did nothing wrong.
- The State introduced the witnesses' prior written statements to police as Exhibits 1 and 2, initially for the limited purpose of impeachment.
- The trial court instructed the jury multiple times that these statements could only be used to evaluate the witnesses' credibility, not as proof that the crime occurred.
- After the State rested, the trial court reversed its own ruling and decided the statements were admissible as substantive evidence, but it did not explicitly inform the jury of this change.
- During closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that the written statements proved Sua's guilt.
- The jury, after sending a note expressing confusion about how to use the exhibits and reporting it was deadlocked, convicted Sua.
- Sua (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2, and the State (Respondent) defended the trial court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a witness's prior inconsistent written statement, which was not given under oath or subject to the penalty of perjury, qualify for admission as substantive evidence under ER 801(d)(1)(i)?
Opinions:
Majority - Morgan, J.
No. A prior inconsistent statement that was not given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury is not admissible as substantive evidence under ER 801(d)(1)(i). The court reasoned that the plain language of ER 801(d)(1)(i), which Washington adopted verbatim from the federal rule, explicitly requires the prior statement to have been 'given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury.' This requirement is a result of a careful legislative compromise and cannot be ignored or replaced by a judicial assessment of the statement's general trustworthiness. The court distinguished prior cases like State v. Smith and State v. Nelson, where the statements were either made under a formal oath before a notary or complied with a statute making them equivalent to a sworn statement. As the written statements from S.S. and Williams lacked this formal oath, the trial court erred by allowing them to be used as substantive proof of Sua's guilt. The court also held, separately, that the trial judge's handling of the evidence—first admitting it only for impeachment with a limiting instruction, then reversing that ruling without clearly informing the jury, leading to juror confusion—was a procedural error so severe that it deprived Sua of a fair trial and warranted a mistrial.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets Washington's Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(i), reinforcing that the formal requirement of an oath is an indispensable prerequisite for admitting a prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence. The court rejects a flexible, 'totality of the circumstances' approach to reliability, thereby preventing the exception from swallowing the general rule against hearsay. This holding creates a bright-line rule that provides clarity and predictability for litigators: a recanting witness's prior unsworn statement to police, no matter how detailed, cannot be the substantive basis for a conviction. It underscores the importance of the specific safeguards (an oath and a formal proceeding) that the rule's drafters deemed necessary to ensure reliability.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Sua