Opinion ID: 1827084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether statements by High Crane and Poor Thunder constituted inadmissable hearsay.

Text: Arguello claims that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the hearsay statements made by Poor Thunder and High Crane moments after they were stabbed. Elizabeth Hairy Shirt and Cook testified that High Crane said, Help me. and He stabbed me. White Dress testified that she heard Poor Thunder say, I'm hurt. Help me. Help me. He stabbed me too. And Cook testified that Poor Thunder said, He got me. He got me too. and pointed to Arguello's truck and said, That truck, right there. Get him. The evidentiary rulings of a circuit court will be disturbed only if the court abused its discretion. State v. Phillips, 489 N.W.2d 613, 616-17 (S.D.1992) (citations omitted). A trial court, however, does not abuse its discretion when it admits hearsay statements which relate to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition[.] SDCL 19-16-6. [5] State v. Orelup, 492 N.W.2d 101, 106 (S.D.1992). `[T]he critical inquiry is whether they (the declarations) were made while declarant was still under the influence of the experience.' State v. Brings Plenty, 490 N.W.2d 261, 264 (S.D.1992) (quoting State v. Percy, 80 S.D. 1, 7, 117 N.W.2d 99, 102 (1962)). In Orelup, we stated that the trial court erred in admitting testimony without first determining whether the statements were related to a startling event and made under the stress of excitement. Orelup, 492 N.W.2d at 106. Arguello claims the trial court similarly erred in failing to make the required findings. This is incorrect. The trial court admitted this testimony as substantive evidence on the basis of res gestae [6] after finding the comments reliable and trustworthy as spontaneous and contemporaneous statements. While the trial court should have referred to this exception as the excited utterance exception, Arguello has failed to demonstrate that it was an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refer to the exception as res gestae.