Camellia Lou Fries v Commonwealth

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: 	Judges Benton, Coleman and Fitzpatrick
Argued at Alexandria, Virginia
CAMELLIA LOU FRIES MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
v. 	Record No. 0837-94-4 	JUDGE JAMES W. BENTON, JR.
JUNE 6, 1995
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Dennis L. Hupp, Judge
Walter F. Green, IV (Green & O'Donnell, on brief),
for appellant.
G. Russell Stone, Jr., Assistant Attorney General
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General, on brief),
for appellee.
Camellia Lou Fries, a juvenile, was tried and convicted of
murdering her mother. 	Over her objection, she was tried at the
same trial with Shawn Roadcap, another juvenile, who was being
tried for the same murder. 	On this appeal, Fries contends that
the trial judge erred in admitting as evidence statements that
Roadcap made to the police prior to trial which were partially
non-self-inculpatory as to Roadcap. 	For the reasons that follow,
we affirm the trial judge's ruling.
At a hearing in the juvenile and domestic relations district
court, Fries was found "guilty of the . . . delinquency charge
. . . 	[of] first degree murder" for killing her mother.
Following Fries' appeal to the circuit court, the Commonwealth
filed a motion to try jointly Fries, Roadcap, and Fries' sister,
*Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.

- 2 -
all of whom had been found guilty of the same delinquency charge
of murder for the killing of Fries' mother. 	Fries and Roadcap
requested a public hearing pursuant to Code § 16.1-302. 	Fries'
sister waived her right to a public trial as permitted by Code
§ 16.1-302. 	The trial judge granted the waiver and ordered that
Fries and Roadcap be tried together.
After Fries' request to sever her trial from the trial of
Roadcap was denied, Fries moved to bar the Commonwealth from
offering in evidence statements made by Roadcap to the police
prior to trial. 	Those statements contained allegations regarding
Fries and contained information that was both self-inculpatory
and non-self-inculpatory regarding Roadcap's participation in the
killing. 	Fries' attorney argued that although the statements
were against Roadcap's penal interest, Roadcap had invoked his
Fifth Amendment right not to testify and was unavailable as a
witness to testify regarding portions of his statements that
concerned Fries. 	Fries' counsel argued that the statements made
by Roadcap were not reliable. 	The trial judge denied the motion.
Fries argues on this appeal that the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in Williamson v. United States, ___
U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 2431 (1994), compels a reversal of the trial
judge's decision. 	In Williamson, the Supreme Court held that
although Rule 804(b)(3) allows in evidence as an exception to the
hearsay rule statements made against a declarant's penal
interest, non-self-inculpatory statements cannot be considered to

- 3 -
be statements made against a declarant's penal interest even if
they are contained within a broader narrative that is generally
self-incriminatory. 	___ U.S. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 2435. 	The
Court held that non-self-inculpatory statements are unreliable
and should be excluded as hearsay. 	Id. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at
2435.
Recently, however, in Chandler v. Commonwealth, ___ Va. ___,
___ S.E.2d ___ (1995), the Supreme Court of Virginia had the
opportunity to address the application of Williamson. 	Although
the court's decision only summarily addressed Williamson, it
unambiguously rejected the primary foundation of that opinion and
held that "Williamson . . . concerned the interpretation of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, not applicable here." 	The Supreme
Court's rationale in Chandler does not permit this Court to apply
in Virginia the rule announced in Williamson that non-self-
inculpatory statements are unreliable and "should [not] be
treated any differently from other hearsay statements that are
generally excluded." 	___ U.S. at ___, 114 S. Ct. at 2435.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial judge's ruling.
Affirmed.