|This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2008)|
||The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (October 2012)|
|Part of the common law series|
|Types of evidence|
|Hearsay and exceptions|
|Other common law areas|
In the law of evidence, the dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may nonetheless be admitted as evidence in certain kinds of cases because it constituted the last words of a dying person.
In medieval English courts, the principle originated of Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentiri — "no-one on the point of death should be presumed to be lying". An incident in which a dying declaration was admitted as evidence has been found in a 1202 case.
In the United States
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible if the proponent of the statement can establish all of the following:
- The declarant’s statement is being offered in a criminal prosecution for homicide, or in a civil action. Some states also permit the admission of dying declarations in other types of case.
- The declarant is unavailable – this can be established using FRE 804(a)(1)-(5).
- The declarant’s statement was made while under the genuine belief that his death was imminent. The declarant does not have to actually die.
- The declarant’s statement relates to the cause or circumstances of what he believed to be his impending death.
Other general rules of admissibility also apply, such as the requirement that the declaration is based on the declarant's actual knowledge.
The statement must relate to the circumstances or the cause of the declarant's own impending death. For example, in the dying declaration of Clifton Chambers in 1988, he stated that ten years earlier, he had helped his son bury a man whom the son had killed by accident. The statement was sufficient cause to justify a warrant for a search on the son's property, and the man's body was indeed found. However, there was no physical evidence of a crime, and since Chambers was not the victim, his dying declaration was not admissible as evidence, and the son was never brought to trial.
The first use of the dying declaration exception in American law was in the 1770 murder trial of the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre. One of the victims, Patrick Carr, told his doctor before he died that the soldiers had been provoked. The doctor's testimony helped defense attorney John Adams to secure acquittals for some of the defendants and reduced charges for the rest.
If the defendant is convicted of homicide but the reliability of the dying declaration is in question, there is grounds for an appeal.
The future of the dying declaration doctrine in light of Supreme Court opinions such as Crawford v. Washington (2004) is unclear (Crawford was decided under the constitution's Confrontation Clause, not the common law). Opinions such as Giles v. California (2008) discuss the matter (although the statements in Giles were not a dying declaration), but Justice Ginsberg notes in her dissent to Michigan v. Bryant (2011) that the court has not addressed whether the dying declaration exception is valid after the confrontation clause cases.
Criticism of Dying Declaration Doctrine
As early as the 1800s, critics questioned the credibility of dying declarations. In a state court case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered the issue of a dying declaration. The defense pointed out that “[t]his kind of evidence is not regarded with favor.”  The defense argued that several factors could undermine the reliability of dying declarations.
Physical or mental weakness consequent upon the approach of death, a desire of self-vindication, or a disposition to impute the responsibility for a wrong to another, as well as the fact that the declarations are made in the absence of the accused, and often in response to leading questions and direct suggestions, and with no opportunity for cross-examination: all these considerations conspire to render such declarations a dangerous kind of evidence.— Aviva Orenstein, Her Last Words: Dying Declarations and Modern Confrontation Jurisprudence, 2010 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1411, 1460 (2010)
Dying declarations are allowed as evidence in Indian courts if the dying person is conscious of his or her danger, he or she has given up hopes of recovery, the death of the dying person is the subject of the charge and of the dying declaration, and if the dying person was capable of a religious sense of accountability to his or her Maker.
- "Last Words", Brendan I. Koerner, Legal Affairs, November/December 2002. Fetched from URL on 9 May 2011.
- "Dying Declaration - A Man Will Not Meet His Maker with a Lie in His Mouth", Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, SSRN, February 25, 2010. In turn, this paper's reference to the 1202 date cites "M.N. Howard, "Phipson on Evidence", 15th edn., Sweet & Maxwell, 2000 at Pg. 886." Note: A number of sentences in this SSRN paper seem to be identical to the "Legal Affairs" article by Koerner, without citing Koerner. I do not know how much this impugns this source.
- Dying declaration unreliable: SC acquits two
- State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299, 303 (1877)
- Orenstein, Aviva (2010). "Her Last Words: Dying Declarations and Modern Confrontation Jurisprudence". University of Illinois Law Review 2010 (5): 1411.