State v. Carlson

• Decision Date: 24 October 1985
• Docket Number: No. 14866,14866
• Citation: 392 N.W.2d 89
• Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ron CARLSON, Defendant and Appellant. . Considered on Briefs
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 89

392 N.W.2d 89

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Ron CARLSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14866.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs Oct. 24, 1985.

July 30, 1986.

Sherri L. Sundem, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., and Barry Vlasman, Legal Intern, Pierre, on brief.

John N. Gridley III, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.

MORGAN, Justice.

Defendant Ron Carlson (Carlson) was convicted of one count of sexual contact with a minor under the age of fifteen, SDCL 22-22-7, after trial to a jury. The alleged victim was Carlson's daughter, Dawn, DOB 2/26/66. Carlson appeals from the conviction and we reverse and remand.

Carlson and his family lived in Baltic, South Dakota, from 1965 until the summer of 1983, although Carlson was a teacher in the Watertown, South Dakota, school system beginning in the fall of 1979. He initially commuted daily for some period of time and then stayed in Watertown during the week, returning home only on weekends. In the summer of 1983, Carlson's wife, Lita, found a job in Watertown and they contemplated moving there with their youngest child, Dawn. The record reflects resistence to the move by Dawn, who would have been a senior in Baltic High School in the 1983-84 school year.

In August of 1983, Dawn, who was then seventeen years of age, and a close friend, Sue Horstmeyer (Mrs. Horstmeyer), a neighbor for whom Dawn babysat, were discussing the prospects of Dawn moving to Watertown with her parents. At that time, Dawn told Mrs. Horstmeyer that Carlson had come into her room and fondled her breasts and at times put his fingers into her vagina. Dawn also told Mrs. Horstmeyer that she had not told her mother or anyone about the incident as she did not want to hurt her parents, nor did she want to make any trouble for them. During the period of 1981-82, Dawn also complained to her brother Allen that Carlson was "bothering her." She did not indicate at that time in what manner she was being bothered but in June of 1983, a somewhat intoxicated Dawn became hysterical when Carlson showed up unannounced and unexpected at a party. She then complained to Allen that Carlson had been bothering her and explained that she meant that he would be rubbing her back and "that his hands would touch her in other spots." Eventually, Mrs. Horstmeyer informed the school authorities of what Dawn had told her. Dawn was subsequently interviewed by Pat Adams, a Minnehaha County Deputy Sheriff and a member of the Child Protection Team. The investigation resulted in Carlson's indictment by the grand jury for sexual contact with a minor.

On appeal, Carlson raises two issues: (1) Whether the statements made by Dawn to Mrs. Horstmeyer and to Deputy Sheriff Adams were admissible in evidence as prior consistent statements; and (2) whether the trial court erred in not ordering a psychiatric examination of Dawn prior to the trial.

Carlson's counsel initially contends that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements as nonhearsay under the prior consistent statement rule of SDCL 19-16-2(2). In a pretrial hearing on a defense motion in limine to exclude as hearsay any statements made by Dawn to any of State's witnesses outside of Carlson's presence, the trial court deferred ruling on the motion until the particular statements could be heard outside the presence of the jury and ruled on individually. After opening statements, the trial court held an in camera conference wherein Mrs. Horstmeyer was examined to determine what testimony she would be providing concerning Dawn's statements during the trial. Defense counsel objected to admission on the grounds of hearsay. After argument of counsel, the trial court stated:

It does occur to me in view of the situation that has been outlined in the opening statements that there is an express or implied charge of improper influence or motive and recent fabrication. I am going to admit this evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) (SDCL 19-16-2(2)) as a statement that's consistent with the testimony of the complaining witness and is offered to rebut an express or an implied charge of her recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, and I am going to overrule your objection to that evidence.

SDCL 19-16-2 provides, in pertinent part:

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is

....

(2) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive[.]

This is adopted verbatim from the Federal Rules of Evidence, 801(d)(1)(B). Carlson argues that a statement must have been made before the time of any alleged fabrication or existence of improper influence or motive, citing United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1351 (7th Cir.1979). We recently discussed this rule in State v. Thompson, 379 N.W.2d 295 (S.D.1985), wherein we adopted a three-part test found in United States v. Quinto, 582 F.2d 224 (2d Cir.1978):

Before a prior consistent statement will qualify as nonhearsay under the rule, the proponent must demonstrate three things. First, he must show the prior consistent statement is consistent with the witness' in-court testimony. Second, he must establish that the statement is being used to rebut an express or implied charge against the witness of recent fabrication or improper motive or influence. Finally, the proponent must demonstate that the prior consistent statement was made prior to the time the proposed motive to falsify arose. ^*

Thompson, 379 N.W.2d at 296.

Carlson urges that the statement to Mrs. Horstmeyer, which was the seed from which the criminal investigation sprang, was made after the dispute arose over Dawn moving to Watertown with the family. Weinstein states:

Substantive use under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) is limited to situations where high probative value is most likely. Evidence which counteracts the suggestion that the witness change his story in response to some threat or scheme or bribe by showing that his story was the same prior to the external pressure is highly relevant in shedding light on the witness' credibility. Evidence which merely shows that the witness said the same thing on other occasions when his motive was the same does not have much probative force 'for the simple reason that mere repetition does not imply veracity.'

4J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence 801-150-151. See also McPartlin, supra. Judge Weinstein further notes:

[T]he court has considerable discretion to admit on the issue of credibility as compared to a narrower scope where the proffer is as evidence-in-chief. Since Rule 801(d)(1)(B) provides that the prior consistent statement may be accorded substantive use only if it is used to rebut an express or implied charge, impeachment of the witness is a precondition.

4 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, at 801-152-153. (Emphasis in original.)

In this case, the testimony of Mrs. Horstmeyer was offered prior to Dawn even taking the stand. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in United States v. Strand, 574 F.2d 993, 997 n. 4 (9th Cir.1978): "[S]ince the defendant had not testified, the statements were not admissible as prior consistent statements[.]" In this case, the trial court declared the statements admissible under the rule only on the basis of the opening statements of counsel, which were not transcribed and are not part of the record. He made no attempt to determine if Dawn might have any motive to fabricate and to evaluate whether the statements were made before or after such improper motive arose. He apparently relied on the prosecutor's representations as to what Dawn would testify to.

State urges that the statements Dawn made to her brother Allen, which will be discussed later, negate any motive on the part of Dawn to fabricate. "This determination is better made at the time that the evidence is offered, or at a motion to suppress where the proper questions can be asked and the responses of the witnesses observed by the trial judge before admitting or suppressing the evidence." State v. Martin, 135 Ariz. 552, 555, 663 P.2d 236, 239 (1983). We thus conclude that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Mrs. Horstmeyer without making the proper determination as to the basis for admission under SDCL 19-16-2(2).

Carlson also urges error because of the trial court's admissions of the report of Deputy Adams on statements made by Dawn in May of 1984 after her parents had told her they could not help her with college. What we have said regarding Mrs. Horstmeyer's testimony would be equally applicable to Adams' testimony, however, no in camera hearing on the proposed testimony was held before the witness testified. The record is devoid of any objection on the part of Carlson. We have repeatedly held that " '[w]e will not review a matter on appeal unless proper objection was made before the trial court.' [citations omitted] Objections must be made to the trial court to allow it to correct its mistakes." Johnson v. John Deere Co., 306 N.W.2d 231, 239 (S.D.1981).

State also elicited, without objection, the testimony of Dawn's brother Allen regarding statements made to him as early as the 1981-82 school year. She complained that Carlson was "bothering" her. Carlson suggests that Allen did not take that to mean "sexually." There was one more complaint and finally the one in June of 1983 when Carlson arrived home unexpectedly one evening and Dawn became hysterical. Carlson does not contend that these statements were made under improper influence or motive; rather, he passes them off as to what Allen understood them to mean. What Allen understood his sister to mean in 1981 or 1982, is immaterial. The fact is that she made the statements. Absent objection, they were clearly admissible as consistent statements...