Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Evidence
Evidencehearsaydue processcapital sentencingmitigating evidencereliabilitydeclarations against interestfair trial
Facts
Petitioner and Carzell Moore were indicted together for the rape and murder of Teresa Carol Allen, but they were tried separately. At petitioner's capital sentencing proceeding, he sought to introduce testimony from Thomas Pasby that Moore had told him Moore killed Allen by shooting her twice after ordering petitioner away on an errand. The trial court excluded Pasby's testimony as hearsay under Georgia law. The State then argued that, without direct evidence about the killing, the jury could infer petitioner directly participated in the murder from the multiple gunshots.
Issue
Whether, in the punishment phase of a capital case, excluding hearsay testimony that another participant confessed to being the killer violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under the particular facts presented.
Rule
Even if proffered evidence is hearsay under state law, due process is violated when, in the unique circumstances of a capital sentencing proceeding, the state excludes testimony that is highly relevant to a critical punishment issue and for which substantial reasons exist to assume reliability. In such circumstances, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Daniel Cruz was convicted of felony murder, and the case moved to a separate capital sentencing hearing. Daniel offered testimony from his cousin, Elena Park, that his accomplice, Malik Turner, had spontaneously told her over dinner that Malik alone stabbed the victim after sending Daniel to buy gas; physical evidence matched Malik's account, and prosecutors had introduced Elena's testimony at Malik's earlier trial. The judge excluded Elena's testimony solely as hearsay under state law.
Daniel argues that the exclusion violated due process. What is the best answer?
Explanation. The controlling rule is narrow but clear: in the unique circumstances of a capital sentencing proceeding, due process is violated when the State excludes evidence that is highly relevant to a critical punishment issue and substantial reasons exist to assume its reliability. Here, the statement concerns who actually carried out the killing, was spontaneous, corroborated, against the accomplice's interest, and was even used by the State in the accomplice's own case. Under that combination of relevance and reliability, the hearsay rule cannot be applied mechanistically to defeat justice.