In People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, the declarant made a statement after his arrest for a drive-by shooting. The statement was partially inculpatory and partially exculpatory. The Supreme Court found that many of the comments were beneficial to the declarant and therefore they should not have been admitted against the defendant. Further, the court found that the declarant's statements lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness in part because they attempted to shift blame to others and were made after the declarant's arrest in the coercive atmosphere of an official interrogation. In People v. Duarte (2000) the court explained that "a hearsay statement 'which is in part inculpatory and in part exculpatory (e.g., one which admits some complicity but places the major responsibility on others) does not meet the test of trustworthiness and is thus inadmissible.'" ( Id., at p. 612.) In the Duarte case itself, the court held it was error to admit statements which "tended sympathetically to describe the declarant's participation in the shooting of the victim's residence, to minimize his responsibility for the injuries caused thereby and to imply that others who were or might become implicated should bear a greater share of the responsibility." ( Id., at p. 613.)