Also known as: declaration against interest · declarations against interest · declaration against interest exception · statement against interest · admission against interest
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exception that admits an unavailable declarant's statement when a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made the statement only if believing it true because the statement was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability. Only those discrete portions of a statement that are genuinely self-inculpatory qualify for admission under the exception. Non-self-inculpatory remarks remain inadmissible even when embedded in an otherwise qualifying narrative.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Simon told a colleague that he promoted a drug for unapproved uses to meet his quota and that Frances supplied off-the-record training slides. After Simon's death the colleague offers the full account at trial. The court admits only Simon's admission of his own off-label promotion because that remark alone tends to expose him to liability. The portion naming Frances does not qualify and is excluded.
McDonald told three witnesses shortly after a killing that he alone committed the crime. At Chambers's trial the defense offers the statements to show McDonald was the perpetrator. The trial court excludes them as hearsay. The statements would have been admissible as declarations against interest had the court applied the exception rather than a rigid hearsay bar.
Keith told Anita over drinks that he knowingly misreported asset values to protect bonuses. Keith later invoked the Fifth Amendment at deposition and became unavailable. Anita offers the statement at trial. The court excludes it because the intoxicated and boastful setting prevents a finding that a reasonable person would have spoken only if believing the statement true.
Leo signed a stationhouse statement accusing Dana of directing credit-card fraud. Leo later recanted and the prosecution offered the statement at Dana's trial. The court excludes the statement because it is testimonial hearsay and Leo was never cross-examined, even though the statement might otherwise qualify as against interest.
Toy made statements after an unlawful entry and Yee later surrendered narcotics. The government seeks to use Toy's statements to corroborate Wong Sun's account. The court holds the statements inadmissible against Toy because they were obtained through the illegal entry and the resulting unavailability does not satisfy the exception's requirements.
No. The statement against interest exception rests on the declarant's recognition that the statement is contrary to his own interests rather than on any formal oath requirement. That oath element applies only to the former-testimony exception.
Supporting sources
No. Each discrete remark must be examined separately. Only those portions that are genuinely self-inculpatory as to the declarant are admissible. Remarks that merely shift blame to another person remain inadmissible even when they appear in the same conversation.
…absence of the oath and opportunity for cross-examination. Among the most prevalent of these exceptions is the one applicable to declarations against interest[^maj-14]—an exception founded on the assumption that a person is unlikely to fabricate a statement against his own interest at the time it is made. Mississippi recognizes this exception but…
…considerable assurance of their reliability," id. , at 300, and were "well within the basic rationale of the exception for declarations against interest
…to the introduction of the statements the claim that each statement
…part: "[T]he third-party confession . . . may include statements implicating [the accused], and under the general theory of
Supporting sources
Yes. The exception is available in both civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases the proponent need only show unavailability and that a reasonable person would have made the statement only if believing it true. No additional corroboration is required.
Supporting sources
Unavailability exists when the declarant is dead, invokes a privilege, refuses to testify despite a court order, testifies to a lack of memory, or is absent despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent must not have wrongfully caused the absence to prevent testimony.
Supporting sources
No. A statement made to a subordinate at the job site can still qualify if it exposes the declarant to criminal or civil liability. The reasonable-person test focuses on the content's tendency to subject the declarant to liability rather than on the formality of the audience.
Supporting sources