Particularized guarantees of trustworthiness are present only when cross-examination would add nothing to the reliability of the statement. Here, cross- examination was essential. The court admitted Mr. Tate's statements under two theories. The detectives first testified that they had a conversation with Mr. Tate. The court then permitted them to relate what their own understanding was after Mr. Tate talked to them, concluding this was not hearsay.
Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence, with a few well- established exceptions.
The trial court's factual determination of whether a statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. We review de novo, however, whether the court's ruling rests on an erroneous understanding of the law. The State persuaded the court that it had eliminated the hearsay problem by rephrasing its questions in a way that avoided direct quotes from Mr. Tate. This was wrong. As in Check , having Detective Runge testify to the nature of his understanding after talking to Mr. Tate instead of reporting what Mr. Tate actually said was simply an attempt to circumvent the rule.