The Supreme Court has vacated the conviction in a first-degree murder case.
At trial, the district court excluded evidence that another person committed the murder. In doing so, it relied upon State v. Larsen, 91 Idaho 42, 415 P.2d 685 (1966). This evidence included confessions from the alternate perpetrator.
The Supreme Court first held that the Rules of Evidence in general (and IRE 403 in particular) are the controlling authority for admissibility of alternative perpetrator evidence. In doing so, it found that the adoption of the rules of evidence implicitly overruled Larsen. The Court then vacated the conviction because the district court did not apply the correct legal standard to the question of admissibility.
The Court went on to note that the confessions must meet the standards of IRE 804(b)(3) (statements against interest) in order to be admissible. That rule requires that "corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of of the statement." The Court, looking to State v. LaGrand, 734 P.3d 563 (Ariz. 1987), held that the district court's determination of whether the corroboration requirement has been met should be limited to asking "whether evidence in the record corroborating and contradicting the declarant's statement would permit a reasonable person to beleive that the statement could be true." It also set forth several factors for the court to consider:
"Those factors are: (1) whether the declarant is unavailable; (2) whether the statement is against the declarant‟s interest; (3) whether corroborating circumstances exist which clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the exculpatory statement, taking into account contradictory evidence, the relationship between the declarant and the listener, and the relationship between the declarant and the defendant; (4) whether the declarant has issued the statement multiple times; (5) whether a significant amount of time has passed between the incident and the statement; (6) whether the declarant will benefit from making the statement; and (7) whether the psychological and physical surroundings could affect the statement."
State v. Meister, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/State%20v%20Meister%20.pdf
Congratulations to Eric Lehtinen of the SAPD!
Update: Eric informs me that credit goes to Tom Whitney who was trial counsel and "did a fantastic job."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As an interesting footnote, Lane Thomas was the State's jailhouse snitch in the retrial of State v. Mark Lankford, another first degree murder case. Mr. Lankford's conviction for two counts of first degree murder is currently awaiting oral argument before the SCOID. In Mr. Lankford's Notice of Appeal, one of the intial issues was the trial court's admission of Lane Thomas' testimony. The good people at the SAPD's office are also handling Mr. Lankford's current appeal.
ReplyDeleteThen why is there 3 or 4 polygraph tests that Lane F Thomas was found to be of no deception--think before you accuse!
ReplyDeleteAs I remember Dave Meister was actually convicted of the murder that took place. He has been incarcerated ever since the conviction. His conviction was based upon his own admission. It indicated no conspiracy or accessories originally. The 'alternate perpetrators' vehicle (which actually was owned by another person) contained obviously planted phony evidence. Scenario in my opinion: Her death was a conspiracy committed by Dave Meister with the intentions of framing the 'alternate perpetrator'. Wow what an easy target! Anybody find the gun? Where is the bullistic evidence? Without any REAL evidence there is no case other than heresay. Heresay is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing, if a lawyer hands you a stack of $100 bills that is actually a stack of paper clippings with a hundred dollar bill on top of it, would you sell him your 2009 Mustang?