Ring v. Erickson

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992 · Evidence

968 F.2d 760 (8th Cir. 1992)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseHearsaySixth Amendmentmedical diagnosis or treatmentchild declarantparticularized guarantees of trustworthinessfirmly rooted hearsay exception

Facts

Ring was convicted in Minnesota state court of criminal sexual conduct charges involving two minors, including his daughter, C.R. At trial, the court admitted two videotaped statements by C.R. even though C.R. was found incompetent to testify. One statement was made to Dr. Carolyn Levitt more than a month after the alleged abuse and was admitted under the medical-diagnosis-or-treatment hearsay exception. The other was made to social worker Luann Heim and was admitted under a Minnesota child-sex-abuse hearsay statute requiring reliability and corroboration.

Issue

Whether admitting C.R.'s two videotaped out-of-court statements violated Ring's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. More specifically, the question was whether either statement fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or otherwise had particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Rule

The Confrontation Clause permits admission of hearsay only if the statement bears adequate indicia of reliability. That requirement is satisfied if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or if it is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness must be assessed from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, and corroborative evidence of the alleged act is not a proper basis for that assessment.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a criminal trial in Omaha, six-year-old Talia was found incompetent to testify. The prosecution seeks to admit her recorded out-of-court accusation through a neighborhood counselor, arguing that the statement is reliable because Talia is unavailable and the defense had notice of the recording.

Under the governing Confrontation Clause approach, what is the strongest response to the prosecution's argument?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that hearsay offered against a criminal defendant must bear adequate indicia of reliability. That requirement is satisfied only if the statement falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Unavailability alone is not enough, and prior sworn testimony is not the exclusive route.