State v. Graham (Concurrence)

Summary

Justice Ecker, joined by Justice D’Auria, concurs in the judgment but not in the majority’s reasoning on the admissibility of an accomplice’s hearsay statement. He agrees that existing precedent required admission of the statement against penal interest because the defendant did not ask the court to reconsider that precedent. He argues, however, that the precedent should be reconsidered in a future case because it did not adequately address whether an accomplice who identifies another participant as the killer would reasonably understand that the statement exposed the accomplice to felony-murder liability. Justice Ecker, concurring, would leave that question unresolved because it was not fully briefed.