N.M. R. Evid. 11-807
N.M. R. Evid. 11-807
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-807 NMRA has been amended to be consistent with the restyling of the federal rules of evidence to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
This "catch-all" hearsay exception provision applies to Rule 11-803 NMRA and Rule 11-804 NMRA and replaces the redundant provisions previously repeated in both of those rules.
[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Statements about past events and present thoughts were not admissible. - Where defendant was charged with first-degree murder; defendant claimed the defendant was acting in self-defense; to support its theory of deliberate murder, the state introduced the victim's diary into evidence to show that defendant was increasingly violent and controlling towards the victim, including specific acts of domestic violence against the victim; diary entries such as "Im scared", "Im so mad an sad an confused", "my boyfriend hit me cuz we were argueing so he gave me a fat lip and a black eye an a big bruzed on my check bone", "da 17th was the scaryest day of my life", and "I still don't know if I should be wit him Im scared 2 even see him" were not admissible under Rule 110-83 NMRA; and the state made no attempt to show why the diary should be considered more or less reliable than any other diary and never asked the trial court to address any specific criteria of the residual exception, the diary was not admissible under the residual exception. State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, 289 P.3d 1215. Self-serving statement offered to mitigate or explain one's actions does not have guarantees of trustworthiness. - Where defendant, in support of his claim of self-defense, sought to admit, through the testimony of the arresting officer, defendant's out-of-court statement that the victim "came at him with a sword," the district court properly rejected defendant's statement under 11-807 NMRA, because defendant made the statement two hours after the murder took place while defendant still had the victim's blood on his clothes; defendant was offering the officer self-serving testimony to mitigate or explain his actions; defendant made no effort at trial to offer any evidence of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement that would tend to guarantee its trustworthiness. State v. King, 2015-NMSC-030. Verified allegations in a complaint. - Where registered shareholders sold and transferred their certificates of shares in the defendant corporation; the certificates were subsequently transferred to plaintiff in 1989; the registered shareholders obtained replacement certificates in 1987; when plaintiff attempted to register the original certificates in plaintiff's name in 1990, the corporation refused to register the original certificates; when plaintiff discovered in 2007 that the corporation had issued replacement certificates to the registered shareholders, plaintiff filed suit for fraud; in plaintiff's verified complaint, plaintiff alleged that the chief executive officer of the corporation had informed plaintiff that plaintiff's certificates would be noted in the corporation's records; plaintiff died during the course of the litigation; plaintiff's estate contended that the verified statements in plaintiff's complaint were sworn statements that supported plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations had been tolled; and the estate offered evidence that tended to corroborate plaintiff's verified statements, but did not offer any evidence of the circumstances surrounding the making of plaintiff's statements that would tend to guarantee their trustworthiness, the residual hearsay exception did not apply to the statements. Wilde v. Westland Dev. Co., Inc., 2010-NMCA-085, 148 N.M. 627, 241 P.3d 628.