State v. Hendricks, 759 S.E.2d 434

Defendant Matthew Hendricks was convicted of kidnapping and two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for assaults the victim described as anal and vaginal rape; he claimed the acts were consensual.
After the assault the victim went to her mother Lisa Gilstrap’s house; the victim was distraught, bleeding, and testified she told her mother what Hendricks had done.
Gilstrap drove the victim to the hospital and called 911 while en route; the prosecution sought to admit a recording of Gilstrap’s 911 call, which repeated the victim’s statements and identified Hendricks.
At trial the court admitted the 911 recording; the jury heard a portion in which Gilstrap said the boyfriend had beaten, raped, and sodomized her daughter and gave Hendricks’ name.
On appeal Hendricks challenged admission of the 911 recording as hearsay; the court reviewed whether (1) the victim’s out-of-court statement to Gilstrap and (2) Gilstrap’s repeating statement to the 911 operator fit hearsay exceptions.
The court upheld admission of the victim’s statement as an excited utterance, ruled the trial court erred in admitting Gilstrap’s statement, but found the error harmless and affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the victim’s out-of-court statement (relayed on the 911 call) was admissible hearsay	State: admissible as excited utterance (spontaneous, under stress)	Hendricks: hearsay not admitted	Admitted — trial court acted within discretion; statement qualified as excited utterance
Whether Gilstrap’s 911 statements repeating the victim were hearsay and admissible	State: not offered for truth or admissible as present sense impression/excited utterance	Hendricks: hearsay; not within exceptions	Hearsay; not admissible as present sense impression or excited utterance — admission was error
Whether the objection to the 911 recording was preserved	State: objection implied hearsay and exceptions were argued, preserving issue	Hendricks: objection not specific	Preserved — context made hearsay basis apparent; trial court and State treated it as hearsay objection
Whether erroneous admission of Gilstrap’s 911 statement was prejudicial (reversible error)	State: error harmless because content was cumulative to properly admitted testimony	Hendricks: prejudiced because recording corroborated victim and was cumulative and impactful	Harmless error — no prejudice because same substance had been admitted through live testimony; convictions affirmed

State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120, 665 S.E.2d 602 (explains excited utterance standard and appellate review)
State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103, 644 S.E.2d 684 (discusses spontaneity and totality of circumstances for excited utterance)
State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16, 558 S.E.2d 518 (explains rationale that a startling event suspends reflective thought)
State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 170, 638 S.E.2d 57 (refuses present-sense/immediate-excited-utterance foundation where declarant did not perceive event or was not shown still under stress)
State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 544 S.E.2d 30 (supports excited utterance where no time for reflection existed)
State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 737 S.E.2d 490 (preservation of objection where context made basis apparent)
State v. Whisonant, 335 S.C. 148, 515 S.E.2d 768 (addresses improper corroboration and cumulative impact)
Jolly v. State, 314 S.C. 17, 443 S.E.2d 566 (discusses cumulative corroboration concerns)
State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473, 716 S.E.2d 91 (improper cumulative hearsay may be harmless)
State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 625 S.E.2d 641 (reversible error requires prejudice from improper hearsay)
State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324, 751 S.E.2d 645 (reaffirming harmless-error prejudice requirement)