of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 123-24, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 1894, 144 L.Ed.2d 117, 126 (1999) (citations omitted}. When the declarant is unavailable, the proponent of such hearsay must show certain “indicia of reliability” before the statement may be admitted as evidence. [¶ 37.] There are two methods of satisfying this reliability threshold. First, “ ‘indicia of reliability’ [are] inferred when ‘the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ” Frazier, 2001 SD 19 at ¶27, 622 N.W.2d at 257 (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146, 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 652 (1990)). Second, the evidence may be admissible with a “showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. (quot 0, 704-05 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Third, the court appropriately instructed the
holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage holding that statements made during a compulsory psychological examination are admissible to rebut a defendants diminished capacity defense holding statements admissible to rebut defendants claims of selfdefense suicide or accidental death holding victims statements admissible under state of mind exception to rebut defendants claim of accident andor suicide holding that defendants statements not admissible once he had invoked right to counsel without proof of waiver