 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Engesser4/23/2003
Doerr, 886 F2d 944, 956 (7thCir 1989) (quoting Snyder, 872 F2d at 1355-56. The trial court did in fact consider most of these circumstances.
[ .] Under these criteria, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the statement. The statement was given by a felony suspect, who was unavailable because he was in flight from the authorities. Nothing about this gives us any comfort that he has a character for truthfulness and honesty. His statement was not given under oath, not subject to cross-examination, and not subject to any penalty for perjury. The statement was not even given to Attorney Finch in person. It was given over the telephone. We have no way of knowing what Boyle's motivation was for giving the statement. There is no corroboration of his claimed observations. Lastly, the circumstances of his being unavailable strongly suggest that he would not be the type of person to garner credibility. The trial court properly considered all these facts in deciding that this hearsay was inadmissible.
[ .] In any event, Boyle's statement to Finch was only marginally relevant. As the trial court found, Boyle did not place a time frame on what he saw. The court regarded this as crucial. Indeed, Engesser himself indicated that he left the bar with the deceased around 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. That would have been the time Boyle would have seen them. The accident, however, occurred two to two and half hours later. But the bar was only ten to fifteen minutes from the scene of the accident. Thus, who was driving the car so long before the accident had little relevance to the question of who was driving it at the time of the accident. Even Engesser admitted that he had been driving the car earlier in the day. Lastly, it must be understood, as South Dakota's Professor Larson explains, that even when a statement qualifies as a hearsay exception, it does not mean that the statement must be admitted: "The balancing test of SDCL 19-12-3 (Rule 403) applies regardless, and the statement is subject to the requirement of the other rules of evidence." John W. Larson, South Dakota Evidence § 804.6, p 703 (1991). Thus, the trial court was well within its discretion in concluding that this statement was "unreliable," i.e., had little probative value. The "admissibility of evidence rests largely in the discretion and practical judgment of the trial court." Table Steaks v. First Premier Bank, 2002 SD 105, , 650 NW2d 829, 838. Here, the court carefully exercised its judgment in refusing admission of this statement, and it did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
4. Spoliation Instruction
[ .] At trial, the defendant proposed two jury instructions rejected by the trial court.*fn7 To establish reversible error from a trial court's refusal to give a requested instruction, the party asserting error must show that (1) the tendered instruction was a correct statement of the law, (2) the instruction was warranted by the evidence, and (3) the error in not giving the instruction was prejudicial. State v. Webster, 2001 SD 141, , 637 NW2d 392, 394. Prejudice is shown by establishing that the jury would have returned a different verdict if the proposed instruction had been given. State v. Knoche, 515 NW2d 834, 838 (SD 1994). Because Engesser's proposed instructions on spoliation were inaccurate under the law and unwarranted under the facts, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to give them.
[ .] Intentional destruction of evidence, a form of obstruction of justice, is called "spoliation." McCormick on Evidence § 273 at 660-61 (2d ed 1972); Black's Law Dictionary 1401 (6th ed 1990). When it is established, a fact finder may infer that the evidence des
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|