## Facts

- Gertrude and Pamela Poffel were stabbed to death in January 1993.
- Michael Stewart Matusky was indicted in May 1993 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on two counts of first-degree murder.
- Police initially interviewed Matusky, Pamela’s estranged husband Richard Dean White, and White’s fiancée Rebecca Marchewka.
- White denied involvement and claimed an all-day shopping alibi that Marchewka initially corroborated.
- About three months later, White told Marchewka in confidence that he knew who committed the murders and implicated Matusky as the killer.
- Two days later, Marchewka contacted police, withdrew her earlier corroboration, and said she had lied because White feared parole consequences if police learned he had been drinking at a bar that day.
- White and Matusky were both indicted for the murders and were set for separate trials, with Matusky tried first.
- At Matusky’s trial, White invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not testify.
- Over defense objection, the trial court admitted Marchewka’s testimony recounting White’s out-of-court statement “in full” as a declaration against penal interest, and the jury convicted Matusky on both counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the declaration-against-penal-interest hearsay exception permits admission of an unavailable declarant’s entire out-of-court statement, including collateral narrative and accusatory portions that do not directly incriminate the declarant.
2. Whether admitting the non-self-inculpatory portions of the declarant’s statement required reversal of the convictions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the intermediate appellate court’s reversal of the convictions.
- The court held the trial court applied the penal-interest exception too broadly by admitting collateral portions that did not directly incriminate the declarant.
- Only those portions of the statement that were genuinely self-inculpatory and sufficiently reliable could qualify under the exception.
- The erroneous admission was prejudicial, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A declaration against penal interest is admissible only to the extent the specific statement is genuinely self-inculpatory, not merely because it appears within a generally inculpatory narrative.
- Collateral narrative and blame-shifting accusations about another person are not admissible under the penal-interest exception unless the proponent shows each portion independently satisfies the exception’s requirements.
- When applying the exception, the trial judge must conduct a portion-by-portion analysis, separating directly self-inculpatory content from non-inculpatory or accusatory material.
- Unavailability is satisfied when a declarant invokes the Fifth Amendment and refuses to testify.
- Erroneous admission of a third party’s accusatory hearsay that substantially supports the prosecution’s case is prejudicial and requires reversal when the reviewing court cannot conclude the error did not affect the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Matusky’s convictions because the penal-interest hearsay exception did not justify admitting a non-testifying declarant’s full narrative implicating Matusky; only the declarant’s truly self-inculpatory and reliable portions could be admitted, and the overbroad admission was prejudicial.


State v. Matusky, 343 Md. 467, 682 A.2d 694 (Md. 1996)