771, 786 (3) (b), 865 S.E.2d 150 (2021) (circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness existed under Rule 807 based on a "long and close friendship," where the witness was the declarant's "lifelong" and "best" friend, and "[t]he pair talked to each other daily and shared the personal details of their lives with each other"); Rawls , 310 Ga. at 214-215 (3) (a) (i), 850 S.E.2d 90 (concluding that the declarant's "close relationship with each of the[ ] witnesses gave [the declarant's] statements ... sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible under Rule 807," where the witnesses were the declarant's "best friend[ ]," cousin, and sister, and the declarant and witnesses "often confided" in each other); Reyes , 309 Ga. at 668 (2) (b), 847 S.E.2d 194 (statements were adequately trustworthy under Rule 807 where the declarant and witness "had a close relationship in which they regularly shared with each other what was happening in their lives"); Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) ("statement made to a close personal friend" was sufficiently trustworthy under Rule 807 where the witness and declarant "had known [each other] for three decades" and "maintained a close relationship"); Smart v. State , 299 Ga. 414, 422 (3), 788 S.E.2d 442 (2016) ("We cannot say that statements from a wife to her friends or family, or her own writings, which describe acts of domestic violence, do not, in fact, bear an increased level of trustworthiness [for purposes of Rule 807 ]."). Further, the State's argument that the trial court clearly erred in finding that Aisha and Dixon were "passing acquaintance[s]" is misguided.
"Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis in original). Such guarantees of trustworthiness "must be equivalent to cross-examined former testimony, statements under a belief of impending death, statements against interest, and statements of personal or family history" as "[t]hese categories of hearsay have attributes of trustworthiness not possessed by the general run of hearsay statements that tip the balance in favor of introducing the information if the declarant is unavailable to testify." Jacobs v. State , 303 Ga. 245, 249 (2), 811 S.E.2d 372 (2018) (citations and punctuation omitted).
Given Hudgins’ unavailability to testify and the evidence of her close relationship with Barker, we agree with this ruling. See Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5-6 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (deceased victim's statement to close friend was sufficiently probative and trustworthy to be admissible under the residual exception). Contrary to the habeas court's suggestion, the Confrontation Clause would have had no relevance to Barker's testimony, insofar as Hudgins’ statements to her close friend were not "testimonial."
Statements are considered sufficiently trustworthy "not because of the credibility of the witness reporting them in court, but because of the circumstances under which they were originally made." Id. (citation and punctuation omitted); see also Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) ("Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." (emphasis in original)).
The trial court overruled those objections, and we review those rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 4, 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018). Because Appellant did not object to Barnes's or Ramos's prior-difficulties testimony based on Rule 403 and did not object to Paschal's or Anthony's prior-difficulties testimony at all, we review those claims only for plain error.
"Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis in original). "A trial court's decision to admit hearsay evidence under Rule 807 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."
OCGA § 24–14–6. See also Miller v. State, 303 Ga. 1, 3 (1), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018). Questions about the reasonableness of other hypotheses in cases based on circumstantial evidence are for the trier of fact to decide.
In simpler terms, "[w]hether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State, 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis omitted). Finally, "[a] trial court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-8-807."
"Whether there are exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness is a determination that focuses on the declarant and the circumstances under which the declarant made the statement to the witness." Miller v. State , 303 Ga. 1, 5 (2), 810 S.E.2d 123 (2018) (emphasis omitted). We review a trial court's decision to admit hearsay evidence under Rule 807 for an abuse of discretion.