Admissibility of Self-Incriminating Statements in Theft Investigations
Exhibit 8. Affirming that Dam is a suspect, on the following day, Police Colonel Khiao apprehended Dam. Dam testified admitting to having stolen the property of Huang, as follows: Huang, Daeng Chiao, and being in what capacity they would be considered as witnesses, would be admissible to prove Dam’s guilt. The answer is: Huang is a first-class witness, a direct eyewitness to the theft. He may be heard, provided he did not witness the theft, if he received information from Police Sergeant Daeng. According to Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the testimony of Police Sergeant Daeng cannot be used to confirm the actions of Dam. Police Sergeant Daeng may be heard to support the testimony of Huang, if he can prove that Huang directly informed him of the theft. However, the witness who relayed the information, such as Police Sergeant Daeng, is in an exception because the testimony of Dam is a self-incriminating statement intended to his own detriment. Furthermore, Khiao also testified that Dam had informed him of the event directly.