Boliek v. Missouri

Background

William Theodore Boliek, Jr. was tried in Missouri for murdering Jody Harless. The State said Boliek shot Harless twice to stop her from testifying about a robbery; Boliek admitted firing a nonfatal shot and said another man fired the fatal shot. At trial two witnesses said Harless told them, days before her death, that she feared Boliek would kill her. The prosecutor quoted those alleged words in closing. The Missouri Supreme Court allowed the statements under a hearsay exception for present mental condition; one state judge dissented.

Reasoning

The main question raised was whether admitting those out-of-court statements violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Justice Marshall, dissenting from the Court’s denial of review, applied the Court’s Ohio v. Roberts framework and concluded the statements were not part of a firmly rooted hearsay exception and lacked independent signs of reliability. He explained the evidence was used to prove the truth of Harless’s belief about who would kill her — to show intent — rather than her state of mind, and that it was irrelevant to Boliek’s accidental-shooting defense.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the Missouri ruling and Boliek’s death sentence remain in place. The broader question about when victims’ statements of fear may be used to prove a defendant’s intent was not resolved by the high Court and therefore remains open for future cases and other state courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial and argued for review on Confrontation Clause grounds and, separately, reiterated his view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional.