Opinion
No. 125750.
April 15, 2004.
Summary Disposition.
No. 125750. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, the June 3, 2003, orders of the Wayne Circuit Court granting defendants' motions in limine to suppress testimony regarding alleged statements by a nontestifying codefendant is reversed. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The expected testimony, that a nontestifying codefendant told the witness that defendants hired him to kill the victim, is admissible as a statement against penal interest under MRE 804(b)(3). The codefendant's statement bears adequate indicia of reliability, in that it was voluntarily given to a friend or confederate, and was uttered spontaneously without prompting or inquiry. The statement was not made to law enforcement officers. Although the circuit court found that the statement was not reliable because the codefendant minimized his role in failing to pay the witness for helping dispose of evidence and because codefendant had a motive to lie about this in order to avoid paying the witness, these considerations are irrelevant to the question whether the codefendant was probably speaking the truth when he allegedly confessed to the witness that he participated in a murder. People v. Poole, 444 Mich 151, 165 (1993); People v. Washington, 468 Mich 667, 672-673 (2003). Moreover, the hearsay in question is not "testimonial" and so is not barred by Crawford v. Washington, 541 US ____; 124 S Ct 1354 (2004). Jurisdiction is not retained. Court of Appeals No. 248872.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would deny leave to appeal.