State v. Kaino-Smith

Statements made against a proprietary interest are not admissible over a hearsay objection if the interests the speaker would have been motivated to protect are "speculative and remote."

Smith appealed a trial court judgment convicting her on multiple counts of theft, aggravated theft, and forgery. Smith assigned error to the trial court for admitting inadmissible hearsay evidence. The State produced an out-of-court tape recording of Smith’s spouse, Kevin, stating Smith likely knew she was not a partner in the company she allegedly stole from. The trial court believed Kevin’s statements were “against [his] pecuniary or proprietary interest” because he shared resources with Smith and undermined her defense, and allowed the hearsay evidence pursuant to the exception under OEC 804(3)(c). The Court determined that Kevin’s statements could not be against his “pecuniary or proprietary interest” because at the time, Kevin was unaware the statements would undermine Smith’s defense; applying the hearsay exception under OEC 804(3)(c) was inappropriate. Reversed and remanded.