In the Matter of R.S.S., Delinquent Child. (South Dakota 1991)

Summary

The court held that evidence of the child's alleged prior mistreatment of two other children was inadmissible because it was not relevant to a permitted noncharacter purpose and, in one instance, lacked the required balancing on the record. It also found inadequate reliability findings concerning one child's hearsay statement, but affirmed because the adjudication was supported by admissible evidence and the record indicated that the trial court did not rely on the improperly admitted evidence. A dissent criticized applying criminal evidentiary terminology and standards to juvenile proceedings, while a concurrence agreed only with the result and the presumption that a judge disregards improperly admitted evidence.

Holding

Prior-bad-act evidence concerning the alleged sexual contact with another child. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony because it was not relevant to a permitted noncharacter purpose, its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, and the court failed to perform the required balancing on the record.

Prior-bad-act evidence concerning the spanking of another child. The trial court erred by admitting the testimony because the alleged spanking was not relevant to any material issue in the delinquency proceeding, even though the court stated that it had considered intent, motive, state of mind, and absence of mistake.

Hearsay statements made by the injured child to her parents and the child-protection worker. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements under the residual hearsay exception.

Hearsay statement concerning the alleged sexual contact with another child. The trial court erred by admitting the statement without making sufficiently exacting findings concerning its reliability, although the error did not require reversal.

Sufficiency of the evidence supporting the delinquency adjudication. The admissible evidence was sufficient to support the adjudication, and the erroneous admission of other evidence was nonprejudicial because the matter was tried to the court.