In People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, the defendant and another man were charged with shooting at a dwelling. (Duarte, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 607-609.) Before trial, the defendant's accomplice gave the police a statement acknowledging his participation in the crime, but minimizing his role. A redacted version of the accomplice's statement was admitted at the defendant's trial as an admission against penal interest. (Id. at p. 609.) Duarte reviewed case authority and stated: "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.'" (Duarte, supra, at p. 612.) Applying this rule, the Duarte court concluded the redacted statement, viewed in context, was self-serving and thus should have been excluded at trial. (Id. at pp. 612-613.) People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, made clear that Duarte does not require that a statement that inculpates the defendant and others be excluded provided that the circumstances show the declarant's apparent inculpatory statements are not, in fact, exculpatory, self-serving or collateral. In Samuels, the defendant paid her daughter's boyfriend to murder the defendant's husband. (Samuels, at p. 102.) Fearing the boyfriend would contact police, the defendant arranged for him to be murdered as well. (Id. at p. 104.) At trial, over the defendant's objections, the boyfriend's hearsay statement to an acquaintance that he had killed the defendant's husband and that she had paid him was admitted as a statement against penal interest. The Samuels court held the entire statement was properly admitted as against the declarant's penal interest. (Id. at pp. 120-121.)