Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Blankenship

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 21, 1992No. 74239Published

1ConcurrenceBlackmar, Senior Judge

I concur in the disposition of the case, but write separately to comment about two important evidentiary points.

1. Declarations Against Penal Interest of Unavailable Witness

The principal opinion states “... the incriminating aspect of Williams’ statement does not exonerate the defendant. That alone is sufficient justification for rejecting Williams’ confession....”

I agree. The rule of Sutter v. Easterly, 189 S.W.2d 284 (Mo.1945), permitting the introduction of declarations against the penal interest of an unavailable witness, is a good one. There is no reason to confine its application to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1981

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API