United States v. Phelps - 572 F. Supp. 262 (E.D. Ky. 1983)

Rule:

The statement of a party may be introduced as an admission only when offered against that party. This principle is reflected by the standard but often unanalyzed objection that such testimony by a party constitutes a "self-serving declaration." To be admissible, a party's out-of-court statement need not have been against his interest when made. But it may not be offered in his favor, but only against him.

Facts:

The police were conducting a stakeout when they noticed the occupants of a rental car, the defendants, acting suspiciously. The police contacted the rental agency, which indicated that the vehicle was overdue. The police made contact with defendants, informing them that the vehicle was being seized. When defendants began unloading the vehicle, the police discovered the drugs. One defendant told police that the contents belonged to the co-defendant. Defendants were charged with drug offenses. At trial, the one defendant sought to introduce his statement through the testimony of one of the officers, but the second defendant objected to the admission of the statement. 

Issue:

Was the statement of one defendant telling the police that the drugs belonged to his co-defendant admissible?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court sustained the objection, holding that the statement constituted inadmissible hearsay. The one defendant was not permitted to introduce the statement for his benefit under the hearsay exception for admission by a party opponent. Moreover, the statement was not a present sense impression because it was concerning something that had happened at a remote previous time. Finally, the statement was not an excited utterance because the element of spontaneity was missing.