State v. Richmond, 935 N.W.2d 792

Richmond was a longtime family friend; in 2014 J.C. (another child) gave a recorded forensic interview accusing him of sexual abuse, and Richmond later entered an Alford plea to child abuse in that 2015 case.
In 2016 A.M. (the victim in the charged offenses) disclosed sexual abuse by Richmond, completed a 2016 forensic interview, and a pediatric exam found a hymenal notch consistent with penetration.
The State indicted Richmond for multiple counts of first-degree rape of a child (A.M.) and sought to admit J.C.’s 2014 forensic statements as other-acts evidence under SDCL 19-19-404(b), offering the interviewer (Strand) to recount J.C.’s statements.
J.C. did not testify at trial because her mother refused to produce her; the trial court declared J.C. unavailable and permitted limited testimony from Strand about J.C.’s disclosure over defense Crawford objections.
The jury convicted Richmond on one of four counts; on appeal the South Dakota Supreme Court held J.C.’s 2014 statements were testimonial and admission without prior cross-examination violated the Sixth Amendment, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether J.C.’s 2014 forensic statements are testimonial	State: Statements arose in a forensic interview used in investigation but were admissible as other-acts and via the interviewer; J.C. was unavailable	Richmond: Statements are testimonial; admitting them without J.C.’s live testimony violated Crawford	Court: Statements were testimonial (forensic interview intended to memorialize abuse for prosecution)
Whether Richmond had a prior opportunity to cross-examine J.C.	State: J.C. was unavailable because her mother refused to produce her and the State made sufficient efforts to secure her	Richmond: State failed to make good-faith efforts; he had no prior opportunity to cross-examine J.C.	Court: Richmond had no prior opportunity to cross-examine; this Crawford prong failed (court did not need to resolve availability dispute)
If Confrontation Clause violated, whether error was harmless	State: Error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt—Strand’s testimony was brief/cumulative, prior conviction and plea were admitted, strong corroborating evidence (A.M.’s testimony, medical exam, family corroboration)	Richmond: Error was prejudicial and not harmless	Court: Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause excludes testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of non-hearsay)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (factors for harmless-error review of Confrontation Clause violations)
United States v. Eagle, 515 F.3d 794 (forensic child interviews may be testimonial)
United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d 548 (forensic interviews characterized as testimonial)
State v. Kihega, 902 N.W.2d 517 (S.D. distinction between hearsay offered for truth and non-hearsay)
State v. Podzimek, 932 N.W.2d 141 (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Carothers, 724 N.W.2d 610 (definition of a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine)
State v. McKinney, 699 N.W.2d 471 (S.D. discussion of forensic interviews)