This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C0-98-910

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Jamie Lynn Dennis-Gianakos,

Appellant.

Filed March 23, 1999

Affirmed

Short, Judge

Clay County District Court

File No. K297331

Michael A. Hatch, Minnesota Attorney General, Robert A. Stanich, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101

Todd S. Webb, Clay County Attorney, 807 North 11th Street, Moorhead, MN 56561 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Lawrence W. Pry, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

SHORT, Judge

On January 28, 1997, Michael Gianakos (Gianakos) confessed to staging the robbery of a Super 8 Motel in Moorhead, Minnesota and named Jamie Lynn Dennis-Gianakos (appellant) as his accomplice. Although Gianakos recanted his accomplice statement, appellant was convicted of aiding and abetting theft. Appellant argues: (1) the evidence corroborating Gianakos's statement is insufficient to support her conviction; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Gianakos's statement under Minn. R. Evid. 803(24). We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

I.

Appellant argues the evidence supporting her conviction does not sufficiently corroborate Gianakos's accomplice statement. See Minn. Stat. § 634.04 (1998) (requiring accomplice testimony to be corroborated to support conviction). But when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we only determine whether a jury could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty based on the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences from those facts, giving due regard to the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Wallace, 558 N.W.2d 469, 472 (Minn. 1997). Although an accomplice's incriminating statement must be corroborated to sustain a conviction, corroborating evidence may be circumstantial. State v. Adams, 295 N.W.2d 527, 533 (Minn. 1980); see State v. Bergeron, 452 N.W.2d 918, 924 (Minn. 1990) (listing factors to consider in reviewing corroborating evidence); see also State v. Jones, 347 N.W.2d 796, 800 (Minn. 1984) (stating corroborating evidence need only restore confidence in accomplice's inherently untrustworthy testimony).

The record shows: (1) Gianakos's hands were tightly bound behind his back when officers arrived at the crime scene, indicating someone assisted him during the robbery; (2) appellant did not want details of the crime when she arrived at the scene, but rather walked over to Gianakos, touched his hand and smiled at him; (3) during his interview with investigators after the robbery, Gianakos left the law enforcement center to drive appellant home, and, when he failed to return, appellant told officers Gianakos could not finish the interview because they had a date; (6) appellant also told officers she and Gianakos would not remain at their residence until another interview was scheduled, but when officers attempted to call Gianakos several times that evening, they received busy signals; and (7) after learning Gianakos confessed, appellant directed officers to the stolen postage stamps, money, and duct tape. These facts corroborate Gianakos's accomplice statement and sufficiently support appellant's conviction.

II.

Appellant also argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting an excerpt of Gianakos's statement under the catchall exception to the hearsay rule. Minn. R. Evid. 803(24). But decisions to exclude evidence rest within the broad discretion of the trial court. State v. Buggs, 581 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Minn. 1998). An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement is admitted under the catchall exception if the totality of the circumstances supports its reliability. State v. Byers, 570 N.W.2d 487, 492-93 (Minn. 1997); see Oliver v. State, 502 N.W.2d 775, 778 (Minn. 1993) (examining confrontation issues, disputes over statement, whether statement was against penal interest, corroborating evidence, and witness's demeanor in applying catchall exception); State v. Stallings, 478 N.W.2d 491, 495-96 (Minn. 1991) (looking at witness's motivation to testify, context of statement, and whether witness recanted statement in using multi-factor approach to catchall exception).

Although Gianakos testified his accomplice statement was coerced and "hypothetical," the record shows: (1) Gianakos testified during appellant's trial, admitted to making the prior statement, and was available for cross-examination; (2) Gianakos's statement was self-incriminating; (3) Gianakos has two children with appellant and married her two weeks after the robbery; (4) Gianakos was given several opportunities to leave this investigation before making his statement; and (5) investigating officers testified they did not threaten or coerce Gianakos during his interview. Given these facts and corroborating evidence, we conclude the trial court properly admitted Gianakos's statement under Minn. R. Evid. 803(24).

Affirmed.