935 N.W.2d 804
S.D.2019Background
- Late-night sexual assault of S.S.; she awoke on a garage floor with a man on top of her, was vaginally penetrated, and later reported a head injury and soreness. DNA from vaginal/cervical swabs matched Jonathan Packard.
- S.S. underwent a hospital sexual assault (SANE) examination; ER nurse Erin Stansbury completed a SANE note recording S.S.’s narrative, descriptive details of the assailant, and events surrounding the assault.
- Packard was indicted for second-degree rape and simple assault; tried by jury and convicted. He appealed.
- During voir dire a uniformed police officer (Officer Schulz) said he “knew” Packard; the court dismissed the officer and denied Packard’s mistrial motion.
- At trial the court admitted the SANE note under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception (SDCL 19-19-803(4)); Packard objected to portions identifying the assailant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistrial was required after a uniformed police juror said he “knew” the defendant | Officer’s remark was vague, officer was dismissed, voir dire continued, and no demonstrated prejudice | Officer’s presence in uniform and statement implied law-enforcement familiarity with defendant and tainted the jury pool | Denial affirmed — remark was vague, juror removed, voir dire afforded cure, no actual prejudice shown |
| Whether the SANE note’s out-of-court statements were admissible under the medical-diagnosis hearsay exception (SDCL 19-19-803(4)) | Victim’s narrative and details were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and relied on by clinicians (so admissible) | Descriptive statements about the assailant and post-assault comments were hearsay not reasonably related to treatment and improperly bolstered testimony | Mixed: factual details about the assault were admissible; identifying/descriptive and post-attack statements should have been redacted, but admission was harmless given undisputed assault details and DNA linking Packard |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buchhold, 727 N.W.2d 816 (S.D. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of mistrial denials)
- State v. Roach, 825 N.W.2d 258 (S.D. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for hearsay-admission under medical-diagnosis exception)
- State v. Abdo, 911 N.W.2d 738 (S.D. 2018) (two-part test for statements reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment)
- United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985) (two-part test applying medical-diagnosis hearsay exception)
- Lovejoy v. United States, 92 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 1996) (application of Renville two-part test)
- State v. Garnett, 488 N.W.2d 695 (S.D. 1992) (vague juror comments insufficient to require mistrial)
- State v. Orelup, 492 N.W.2d 101 (S.D. 1992) (admission of child victim’s identification statements under medical-diagnosis exception)
- Olesen v. Class, 962 F. Supp. 1556 (D.S.D. 1997) (statements during SANE exams can serve dual purposes of treatment and prosecution)