At trial K.K. did testify to this, but the district court also had before it evidence to the contrary. Specifically, there was evidence that K.K. s mother, not Kirk, was responsible for decisions limiting K.K. s freedom. Specifically, Kirk testified that it was Breezee who wanted to prevent K.K. from participating on the volleyball team. Walseth testified that K.K. was unhappy about her mother being too strict with her and that she perceived her father as lenient. Kirk goes so far as to assert that the hearsay exception utilized by the district court was not intended to be used when a declarant has recanted.
Case law supports a contrary conclusion.
In State v. Soukup , the court held that the district court properly admitted prior hearsay statements of a child victim stating that his father had assaulted him where the child recanted at trial. The district court found the circumstances surrounding K.K. s recantations suspect, and that they in no way destroyed the trustworthiness of K.K. s original allegations of abuse. The district court s findings are supported by evidence produced both at the pretrial hearing and at trial. First, the district court had before it evidence that K.K. s explanation for her motive to fabricate the allegations against her father was unreliable. Next, the district court found that K.K. s mother was instrumental in bringing K.K. to Kirk s attorney s office where she provided her recantation.