Correct. This statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule, yet the statement probably is inadmissible due its questionable reliability under the circumstances.

Certainly the police officer’s testimony about Barbara’s out-of-court statement is hearsay. It is offered to prove that Alma hit Zelda, the victim. Rule 11-804(B)(3) NMRA 1999 recognizes an exception to the hearsay rule of inadmissibility for a statement against interest. The rule defines a statement against interest as a statement that "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 that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true." Here, this statement subjects Barbara to both civil and criminal liability because she admits involvement in the beating. As such, it falls within the exception for a statement against interest. The problem with the statement is that it is being introduced to prove that Alma hit the victim as Barbara stated. Although this statement is self-inculpatory, Barbara’s self-interest may include reasons other than speaking the truth. She may have been interested in laying blame on Alma to curry favor with the police. Therefore the guarantee of trustworthiness that would otherwise be part of a self-inculpatory statement may not exist in this case. The courts have tended to avoid exclude statements that may shift the blame to another. See Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994); State v. Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, 126 N.M. 477, 971 P.2d 1267; Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 1997-NMCA-111, 124 N.M. 239, 947 P.2d 1059.

Continue to next question