Legal Question in Criminal Law in Texas

RULE 801. DEFINITIONS

(e) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if:

(2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is:

(A) the party's own statement in either an individual or representative capacity;

(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;

(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;

(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship; or

(E) a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

RULE 802. HEARSAY RULE

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or these rules or by other rules prescribed pursuant to statutory authority. Inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection shall not be denied probative value merely because it is hearsay.

RULE 803. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; AVAILABILITY OF DECLARANT IMMATERIAL

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:

(24) Statement Against Interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, or to make the declarant an object of hatred, ridicule, or disgrace, that a reasonable person in declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. In criminal cases, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

801 is definitions for the rules on hearsay. Per 801(e)(2) a statement by a party opponent is NOT hearsay meaning that it is admissible. But, in the event that some crafty lawyer would take the position that an accused is not a "party opponent", then it does not matter because 803 (24) declares that statements against penal interests are always admissible - even if the person making the statement is unavailable - which would cover someone like a coconspirator. (Ex. coconspirator aka CC tells X that CC & U killed Joe Blow & then before your trial, CC dies. X can testify as to what CC said because it subjected CC to prosecution.) You say there are "absolutely no corroborating circumstances" but if you are charged, my guess is that you are reading far too deeply into this. It does not say that there needs to be proof of the crime. It says there must be corroborating circumstances indicating the trustworthiness of the statement. (In the ex., CC had blood on his hands or Joe Blow has disappeared and his house had blood in it, etc.) Too difficult to just make up examples but it doesn't take much.