Opinion ID: 901725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Video tape of Wesley Running

Text: [¶ 26.] When considering evidence proffered for admission under the residual hearsay exception, SDCL 19-16-35, [t]he trial judge has both the obligation and the `considerable discretion' to determine whether `hearsay statements contain the necessary circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness' to be admissible under this rule. State v. Engesser, 2003 SD 47, ¶ 38, 661 N.W.2d 739, 751 (noting that [t]he preliminary question of trustworthiness, underlying the admissibility of `catchall' hearsay statements, is a question for the court, rather than a question of weight for the jury). The proponent of the evidence bears the burden of establishing the trustworthiness requirement in [SDCL 19-16-35]. Id. ¶ 39, 661 N.W.2d at 752 (citation omitted). [¶ 27.] In Engesser, we set forth several factors for a trial court to consider in assessing trustworthiness of hearsay offered under the residual hearsay rule, these include: (1) the character of the witness for truthfulness and honesty and the availability of evidence on that question; (2) whether the testimony was given voluntarily, under oath, subject to cross-examination and a penalty for perjury; (3) the relationship of the witness to the parties and any motivation the witness had for making the statement; (4) the extent to which the witness's statement reflects personal knowledge; (5) whether the witness ever recanted the statement; (6) the existence of corroborating evidence; and (7) the reasons for the unavailability of the witness. Id. ¶ 40, 661 N.W.2d at 752 (citations omitted). Although these factors are neither exhaustive nor mandatory, they provide guidance for an otherwise fact specific inquiry. Id. [¶ 28.] Although Running was subpoenaed and other measures were taken to procure his testimony at trial, Running refused to attend. Therefore, as a substitute for his testimony, Cottier attempted to introduce the entire video taped interview of Running. The video tape portrayed Running being interviewed by a law enforcement officer the morning that Red Star's body was discovered. Cottier alleged that the video had circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. See SDCL 19-16-35. The trial court denied admission of the entire video but permitted portions of the video to show Running's physical condition at the time of the interview. Ultimately, Running's statement that he argued with Red Star was not admitted because the trial court found that it lacked circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to those found in SDCL §§ 19-16-30 through 19-16-34. See SDCL 19-16-35. [¶ 29.] At the time of the interview, Running was housed at a twenty-four hour detoxification facility. The night before the interview Running was picked up by law enforcement because he was too intoxicated to walk. Running was not under oath at the time, subject to cross-examination or subject to penalties of perjury. Based on these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the videotaped interview lacked circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. Therefore, the trial court did not err in excluding portions of the video. [¶ 30.] Moreover, even if the trial court erred in not permitting the viewing of the entire video, the error did not prejudice Cottier. See Krebs, 2006 SD 43, ¶ 19, 714 N.W.2d at 98. Although the video shows Running discussing his shoulder injury as well as talking about a fight with someone, he does not implicate Red Star as the person he fought or even that a fight caused his shoulder injury. Cottier's purpose for wanting the entire video tape shown to the jury was to establish Cottier's reasonable fear of Red Star. Even without the Running video, Cottier was able to present evidence of Red Star's propensity for aggression through other witnesses. Scott Mertz, one of Red Star's acquaintances, testified that Red Star had a reputation for aggression and violence. Jerry Charger, another of Red Star's acquaintances, testified that Red Star was a mean drunk and a bully. Randy Deraad, the manager of the County Detoxification Center, testified that Red Star was unpredictable when intoxicated. And, finally, Cottier himself testified about his fear of Red Star, because of his reputation and propensity for violence. Even if the trial court erred in failing to admit the video, the error was harmless as the evidence was cumulative of other evidence presented independently at trial. State v. Davi, 504 N.W.2d 844, 855 (S.D.1993).