Opinion ID: 1669274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: hearsay testimony admitted under sdcl 19-16-35

Text: Wilcox first argues that the trial court erred in allowing Hallauer to testify regarding Sheena's statements that my tummy hurts and Daddy hit me. He asserts that these hearsay utterances were inadmissible because 1) the defense had not received formal notice from State that it would offer the evidence, 2) they were not the most probative State evidence that Wilcox struck Sheena, and 3) the trial court did not adequately determine whether sufficient indicia of reliability existed regarding these statements. We disagree. SDCL 19-16-35 provides: A statement not specifically covered by any of §§ 19-16-30 to 19-16-34, inclusive, but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by § 19-16-4 if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and if the court determines that (1) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (2) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (3) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this section unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, his intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant. It is quite clear that Sheena's statements, offered to a friend in the bathroom while she helped Sheena, are evidence of a material fact. The stomach pain, corroborated by a bruise seen by Hallauer, and the identification of a blow by Wilcox (she referred to Wilcox as Daddy) as the cause, is unquestionably relevant. This event occurred within the time frame established for infliction of the series of injuries evidenced by scar tissue found at the autopsy (two to three weeks). The first hurdle of SDCL 19-16-35(1) is passed. The second statutory requirement, as State argues, is also met because the statements are more probative than other evidence State proffered. If Sheena's statements were a perfect match for Pittenger's testimony, which they were not, Wilcox's argument that SDCL 19-16-35(2) required exclusion might have merit. However, Pittenger's statements made no reference to any lasting effect or lingering pain. Sheena's statements, considered in these circumstances, indicates more than a blow. Sheena suffered a lasting injury. This ties Wilcox to her death even more securely than Pittenger's testimony. The force of the blow, and its effects, are demonstrated by Sheena's statements. Pittenger's testimony did prove that Sheena was abused by Wilcox. Hallauer's testimony established an injury which resulted from that abuse. Only Sheena could testify as to the lasting effect and pain of a blow. SDCL 19-16-35(2) is satisfied here. The notice requirement of SDCL 19-16-35(3) is a problem only if we interpret the statute to require formal written notificationa requirement not in the statute. In this case, the prosecutor informed the trial court that he had orally informed defense counsel that this evidence would be used, an assertion not contradicted by defense counsel. The defense knew of the substance of Sheena's statement from transcripts of the grand jury proceedings. Hallauer was named on the witness list provided to the defense. This case is readily distinguishable from State v. Traversie, 387 N.W.2d 2 (S.D.1986), in which the State indicated that it was willing to proceed without the challenged evidence. The purpose of the notice requirement is to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the testimony. Traversie, id. at 6. There is no prejudice to Wilcox's case, as he knew it was forthcoming. A final challenge to this evidence, that the trial court did not adequately determine whether sufficient indicia of reliability existed regarding Sheena's statements, is unfounded. The trial judge, here, grounded his decision on the specific facts before him. He spread those facts upon the record, outside of the presence of the jury. State v. Luna, 378 N.W.2d 229, 238 (S.D. 1985). It is obvious from the trial court's consideration that he was seeking to determine if the declarant was likely to have fabricated a response. The trial judge made reference to lack of prompting, lack of a request for a specific answer, [2] lack of pressure on the declarant, and the setting (a home decorating party) in which the statement was made (in the bathroom), and Sheena's youth. In short, the trial court determined that the declarant, Sheena, did not fabricate the response Daddy hit me and Sheena's statement was reliable. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not fail its duty in making adequate findings of reliability before admitting Hallauer's testimony. These findings were not clearly erroneous. Luna, 378 N.W.2d at 238.