Court Opinion

ID: 9724360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:54:07.761048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:59.713921
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge
(dissenting in part).
Determining whether an exception to the hearsay rule is established is largely within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hase v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 312 Minn. 271, 251 N.W.2d 638, 641 (1977). This is especially true when the hearsay is offered under Minn.R.Evid. 803(24) or 804(b)(5) because the statement’s admissibility is dependent upon its “guarantees of trustworthiness.”
Although Hutchinson’s Florence testimony was given under oath and subject to cross-examination, those are but two factors which the trial court may consider in determining trustworthiness. See, e.g., State v. Blasus, 445 N.W.2d 535, 541 (Minn.1989) citing State v. Hansen, 312 N.W.2d 96, 102-03 (Minn.1981). The factors indicating unreliability are substantial: Hutchinson’s refusal to appear in court to testify; the lack of corroboration for Hutchinson’s Florence testimony; the existence of corroboration for Hutchinson’s original police statements; Hutchinson’s facially inconsistent explanations for the change in her testimony; the amount of time between the assault and Hutchinson’s police statement as compared to the amount of time between the assault and the Florence hearing; Hutchinson’s previous relationship with Stallings; and indications that Hutchinson’s Florence testimony may have been coerced. The record supports the trial court’s determination to exclude the Florence testimony as untrustworthy and the ruling should be affirmed.