Opinion ID: 1245872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The videotaped out-of-court interview of C.S. was properly admitted into evidence under SDCL 19-16-38.[1]

Text: Schoenwetter argues that the videotaped interview of C.S. was inadmissible on the basis that: 1) the trial court failed to establish sufficient indicia of reliability as required under SDCL 19-16-38; 2) that all possible statutes under which the videotaped interview could have been admitted were not excluded prior to its admission. We disagree.
SDCL 19-16-38(1) provides for admission of hearsay statements of a youth victim of a sex crime only in the event a trial court finds that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient indicia of reliability. The trial court conducted a hearing outside the presence of the jury and granted the state's request, concluding that the videotaped interview of the child provided sufficient indicia of reliability as required under SDCL 19-16-38(1). In making its determination as to the sufficient indicia of reliability, the trial court properly considered the factors set forth in SDCL 19-16-38 and in State v. McCafferty, 356 N.W.2d 159 (S.D.1984). [2] The Court rationalized: I find in this particular case, the standards set forth in SDCL 19-16-38 have been met. The child has testified at these proceedings, and more importantly, I find there's sufficient indicia of reliability based upon her age. She appears fairly mature for a seven year old. Despite the passage of a little over a year, the testimony set forth here is substantially the same, although there are some discrepancies which are on the tape, but they don't seem to me to be fatal, and based upon thebased upon these indications, I'm going to allow this to be played. The intent to use this tape was made known in October and the Defendant has had a fair opportunity to meet that and defend against that. Hence, each element set forth in SDCL 19-16-38(1) was, in fact, addressed by the trial court. Part 2 of the statute was met by C.S.'s testimony at trial. The determination of whether statements are admissible under SDCL 19-16-38 is within the sound discretion of the trial court. There was no manifest abuse of discretion.