Eighth Circuit Concludes Co-Defendant’s Admission Was Inadmissible in Felon-in-Possession Case

Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for

A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) if offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability, is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and any evidence that supports or undermines it.

Often times, statements that could trigger Rule 804(b)(3) are deemed inadmissible under subsection (B) because they lack sufficient corroborating circumstances. A good example can be found in the recent opinion of the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Quigley, 2025 WL 1820112 (8th Cir. 2025).

In Quigley, Tyson Quigley was convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. After Quigley and his co-defendant White Lance was arrested in connection with a burglary, Lance made admissions during interrogation, including saying at the end of the questioning that “I’ll take responsibility for that gun.” At trial, the court precluded Quigley from presenting Lance’s admission under Rule 804(b)(3) to prove that he was the one who possessed the gun in question.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this ruling, holding as follows:

The district court concluded that White Lance’s statement about taking responsibility for the firearm was not self-inculpatory. We need not conclusively resolve this issue, however, because even if the statement were inculpatory, Quigley fails to show that the statement was sufficiently trustworthy to warrant its admission. White Lance stated he would take responsibility for the firearm only at the end of the interview with the investigator and only after the investigator confronted him for being untruthful. Further, this statement was directly contradicted by eye witnesses, who testified that Quigley was the one carrying the firearm during the incident. Finally, the record demonstrated that White Lance and Quigley were close friends, providing White Lance with a motive to be untruthful: to protect Quigley, who had a previous felony conviction that prevented him from lawfully possessing a firearm. Quigley does not seriously contest any of these facts, instead merely challenging the credibility of the eye witnesses, a matter which is uniquely within the province of the jury and “virtually unreviewable on appeal.”…Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the statement was not admissible under Rule 804(b)(3).

The court also concluded that Lance’s statement failed to satisfy the residual hearsay exception and thus affirmed Quigley’s conviction.

-CM