Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Wright, 497 U.S. at 819, 110 S.Ct. at 3148, 111 L.Ed.2d at 655). Such guarantees of trustworthiness are gleaned from the totality of circumstances “that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.” Id. Corroborating evidence, however, may not be used to demonstrate trustworthiness: “the statement must be trustworthy on its own.” Id. (emphasis in original). [¶ 38.] The trial court concluded that the victim’s statements in this case were both relevant and probative. See State v. Davi, 504 N.W.2d 844, 854 (S.D.1993). Accordingly, it admitted the statements under SDCL 19-16-6, the excited utterance exception, SDCL 19-16-7, the state of mind exception, and SDCL 19-16-35, the residual exception. [¶ 39.] Only one statement was admitt 96) (<HOLDING>); State v. Jones, 137 N.C.App. 221, 527 S.E.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding statements admissible to rebut defendants claims of selfdefense suicide or accidental death (B) holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule (C) holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage (D) holding that victims statements were hearsay admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under ohio v roberts citations omitted (E) holding victims statements admissible under state of mind exception to rebut defendants claim of accident andor suicide
Output (English): holding that victims statements were hearsay admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under ohio v roberts citations omitted