United States v. Armando F. Sacasas, Jr.
381 F.2d 451, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5362 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule is inapplicable in non-homicide prosecutions and applies only when the declarant is dying following a homicidal attack and the statement concerns the circumstances of that attack.
Facts:
- Appellant and Richard L. Mahan rented two cars, a blue Comet and a white Plymouth, using a stolen credit card.
- In the week leading up to July 27, 1966, multiple witnesses observed the appellant with the white Plymouth, often with its trunk open, near a bank in New Rochelle.
- On July 27, two unidentified men robbed a branch of the First Westchester Bank and fled in the blue Comet.
- The robbers drove the Comet to a nearby parking lot where the appellant was waiting in the Plymouth.
- The robbers gave the appellant two pistols and money bags, climbed into the trunk of the Plymouth, and the appellant drove them away.
- Richard L. Mahan, who was indicted with the appellant, died in the Federal House of Detention before trial.
- Approximately ten minutes before he died, Mahan told a fellow inmate, Boyle, 'If anything happens to me tell them that the Greek had nothing to do with the job.'
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant and three others were named in a four-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The appellant's case was severed, and he was tried alone.
- At trial, a jury found the appellant guilty on all four counts.
- The trial court sentenced the appellant to concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was twenty years.
- Following the verdict, the appellant moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, namely Mahan's alleged dying declaration.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The appellant appealed his conviction and the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule permit the admission of an exculpatory statement made by a dying co-defendant in a non-homicide criminal case?
Opinions:
Majority - Waterman, Circuit Judge
No. The dying declaration exception to the rule against hearsay is inapplicable in this case. The court explained that this exception is narrowly construed and requires two key conditions that were not met here: the prosecution must be for homicide, and the declaration must concern the cause or circumstances of the declarant's impending death resulting from a homicidal attack. In this case, Mahan was not the victim of a homicide for which anyone was being prosecuted, and the case itself was a bank robbery, not a homicide. Therefore, Mahan's statement to a fellow inmate, regardless of its timing, is inadmissible hearsay.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional, narrow scope of the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The court's refusal to extend the exception to a non-homicide case underscores the judiciary's reluctance to admit hearsay evidence, which is generally considered unreliable. By strictly adhering to the historical limitations of the exception, the ruling maintains a clear doctrinal line, preventing the exception from being used more broadly to admit deathbed statements in other types of criminal proceedings. This case serves as a clear precedent that the specific context of a homicide prosecution is an essential prerequisite for invoking the dying declaration exception.
