prior statement of one witness to another was inadmissible under Federal Rule 804 (b) in part because proponent of statement “did not demonstrate that the witnesses were unavailable to testify”
How later courts described this case
- prior statement of one witness to another was inadmissible under Federal Rule 804 (b) in part because proponent of statement “did not demonstrate that the witnesses were unavailable to testify”
- “Hearsay within hearsay, or so-called ‘double-hearsay,’ is admissible only if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 16, 2007
No. 07-10100 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00036-CR-CDL-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RANDOLPH WILLIAM ROBINSON,
a.k.a. Shug,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(July 16, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Randolph William Robinson appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and using a firearm during a
crime of violence. On appeal, Robinson argues that the district court abused its
discretion by (1) excluding testimony as inadmissible hearsay, and (2) refusing to
give a jury instruction on an alibi defense because the proffered alibi demonstrated
that Robinson was not present during some of the conspiracy’s overt acts.
I.
Robinson first argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing
to allow him to introduce testimony that the court determined was double-hearsay.
Specifically, Robinson attempted to introduce testimony from his former attorney,
William Nash, that another client, Quinton Perry, told Nash that Robinson’s
coconspirator made incriminating statements about his role in the offense that
could have exculpated Robinson. Robinson argues that the double hearsay was
admissible as a statement against his coconspirator’s interest.
Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in determining that both the coconspirator’s and Perry’s
statements were hearsay. Hearsay is a “statement, other than one made by the
declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay within hearsay, or so-
called “double-hearsay,” is admissible only if each part of the combined statements
2
conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. Fed. R. Evid. 805. Both the
coconspirator’s statement to Perry and Perry’s statement to Nash were made out of
court. The record also reflects that Robinson was, in fact, offering these statements
for the truth of the matter asserted—that is, he was ultimately hoping to establish
that his coconspirator had a plan for the robbery, and that Robinson was not a part
of that plan.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding that the
testimony did not qualify for a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(3). Rule
804(b)(3) provides that “[a] statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal
liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating
circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” Fed.R.Evid.
804(b)(3). For this rule to apply: “(1) the declarant must be unavailable; (2) the
statement must be against the declarant's penal interest; and (3) corroborating
circumstances must clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” United
States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Robinson’s argument that McQueen’s statement to Perry was excepted under Rule
804(b)(3) fails because he did not demonstrate that the witnesses were unavailable
to testify. Further, as the district court correctly noted, Perry’s statement to Nash
does not qualify as a prior statement made by a witness under Rule 804(b)(1)
3
because Perry’s previous statement was not made in a hearing or under oath.
Finally, considering that defense counsel was able to impeach Robinson’s
coconspirator using other means, and, in light of all the other evidence presented
against Robinson, there was no reasonable likelihood that any potential error
affected Robinson’s substantial rights. United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322,
1329 (11th Cir. 1999) (stating that there is no need to reverse a conviction if
evidentiary error “had no substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient
evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict”) (citation omitted). Accordingly,
we cannot conclude that the district court erred in excluding the testimony.
II.
Robinson also argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion
by refusing to give the jury an alibi instruction. Robinson argues that he was
located elsewhere at the time the bank robbery was committed, and therefore an
alibi instruction was appropriate.
We have previously held that an alibi instruction was not necessary where
the defendant was charged with conspiracy and the proffered alibi showed only
that the defendant was not present at the time that one of the conspirators
performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Lee, 483
F.2d 968, 970 (5th Cir. 1973). Although Robinson presented alibi evidence
4
showing that he was not present during the bank robbery, the introduction of this
evidence did not necessitate an alibi jury instruction because he could have been
found guilty of the offense without being present for that particular overt act.
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-48 (1946) (stating that the “overt act
of one partner in [a conspiracy] is attributable to all”). Accordingly, we cannot
conclude that the district court abused its discretion in failing to give the jury an
alibi instruction.
AFFIRMED.
5