## Facts

- Federal agents recovered Roberto Durán Samaniego’s championship boxing belts during a sting operation when Luis Gonzalez Báez attempted to sell them.
- Durán claimed the belts had been stolen in Panama by his brother-in-law, Bolívar Iglesias, and had filed a criminal complaint in Panama alleging theft.
- The United States brought an interpleader action in federal court to determine whether Durán or Báez was the rightful owner of the belts.
- Iglesias, a Panamanian national residing in Panama, did not appear at trial; Durán’s family made repeated unsuccessful efforts to locate him and secure his testimony.
- Durán offered testimony from family members (including his wife and mother-in-law) that Iglesias had apologized for stealing the belts and sought forgiveness.
- Over Báez’s hearsay objections, the district court admitted the family testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), and the jury found Durán to be the rightful owner.

## Issues

1. Whether Iglesias’s out-of-court apology admitting theft was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) as evidence of then-existing state of mind.
2. Whether the apology was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) as a statement against penal interest, including whether Iglesias was unavailable and whether corroborating circumstances indicated trustworthiness.
3. Whether any erroneous admission under Rule 803(3) required reversal.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Durán.
- The court held that admitting the apology under Rule 803(3) was incorrect because the statement was offered to prove a past act (the theft), not merely a then-existing emotion.
- The court concluded the apology was admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) because Iglesias was unavailable, the statement was self-inculpatory, and corroborating circumstances clearly indicated trustworthiness.
- The court affirmed on the alternative evidentiary ground supported by the record, despite the district court’s reliance on a different rule.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 803(3) admits statements of then-existing state of mind or emotion but generally excludes statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered (e.g., an admission of a past theft).
- Under Rule 804(b)(3), hearsay may be admitted if the declarant is unavailable, the statement is against the declarant’s penal interest, and corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the statement’s trustworthiness.
- A witness may be “unavailable” when the witness is outside the court’s subpoena power and cannot be located despite diligent, repeated efforts to secure attendance.
- An appellate court may affirm a judgment on any ground supported by the record, including an evidentiary basis different from the one relied upon by the trial court.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the verdict awarding the belts to Durán, ruling that the declarant’s apology admitting theft was not properly admitted as state-of-mind evidence under Rule 803(3) but was admissible as a statement against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3) given unavailability and strong corroboration.


United States v. Duran Samaniego, 345 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003)