PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL E BELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 6, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 209269
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 95-004885
MICHAEL E. BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 209270
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 97-001258
MICHAEL E. BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Saad and Meter, JJ.
CAVANAGH, P.J. (concurring).
Because we are bound by our Supreme Court’s opinion in People v Poole, 444 Mich 151;
506 NW2d 505 (1993), I concur with the result reached by the majority. I write separately, however,
to reaffirm my serious reservations regarding our Supreme Court’s conclusion that non-self-inculpatory
statements are admissible under MRE 804(b)(3), and to once again urge the Court to reconsider this
issue and adopt the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the corresponding federal rule set
forth in Williamson v United States, 512 US 594; 114 S Ct 2431; 129 L Ed 2d 476 (1994). See
People v Beasley, 239 Mich App 548, 559-562; 609 NW2d 581 (2000) (Cavanagh, J, concurring).
When a hearsay declarant is not present at trial for cross-examination, the Confrontation Clause
normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Furthermore, the unavailable declarant’s statement is
admissible only if it bears adequate “indicia of reliability.” Ohio v Roberts, 448 US 56, 66; 100 S Ct
-1
2531, 2539; 65 L Ed 2d 597 (1980). MRE 804(b)(3) provides that if a declarant is unavailable at trial,
a statement that is against the declarant’s pecuniary interest is not excluded by the hearsay rule. The
underlying rationale of this exception is that a reasonable person will not incriminate himself by admitting
a damaging fact unless he believes that fact to be true. People v Barrera, 451 Mich 261, 271-272;
547 NW2d 280 (1996). A reasonable person will not be likely to make a self-inculpatory statement if
it is not true; however, when a non-self-inculpatory statement is made, even if it is made in close
proximity to a self-inculpatory statement, there is no information as to the reliability of the statement.
Accordingly, such non-self-inculpatory statements should be treated no differently from other hearsay
statements that are generally excluded.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
