People v. DeSomer, 43 N.E.3d 527

Defendant Dirk W. DeSomer was convicted after a bench trial of domestic battery (insulting or provoking contact) and resisting a peace officer in Kendall County
Police encountered the victim, Patricia Langan, in the street at about 1:30 a.m. and she stated her boyfriend was beating her; she appeared visibly disturbed and had a red chest mark
The trial court admitted Langan’s statement to the officer as an excited utterance; the court found Langan’s demeanor supported the spontaneous nature of the statement
Defendant testified that Langan’s injuries were sunburn from biking and denied any beating occurred
The court convicted DeSomer of insulting or provoking conduct and acquitted on domestic battery causing bodily harm, and sentenced him to 12 months’ conditional discharge
Defendant appealed alleging error in admitting the excited utterance evidence and asserting plain-error review potential

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Langan’s statement to the officer was admissible as an excited utterance	DeSomer argues the statement is hearsay and not spontaneous	Langan’s statement was not made while the excitement predominated and was not spontaneous	Yes, admissible; the court did not abuse discretion
Whether admission of the excited utterance requires reversal under plain error	Plain error allows review of unpreserved error if outcome affected or evidence closely balanced	Admission of the statement was error and merits reversal even if not preserved	No reversal; no plain-error reversal required
Whether circumstantial evidence supported the startling event for excited utterance admissibility	Circumstantial evidence corroborates the event of a beating	No independent proof of beating beyond Langan’s statement	Circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish the startling event
Whether the timing of the statement negated spontaneity	Time gap undermines spontaneity of the statement	Exact timing not controlling; spontaneity remains if excitation predominates	Timing did not defeat spontaneity; excitation predominated
Whether other inferences against the defense were reasonable for the trial court to draw	Court could infer disturbance and causation from scene and defendant’s conduct	Inferences are for the fact-finder and could be contrary	Reasonable inferences supported the conclusion; not an abuse of discretion

People v. Sutton, 233 Ill. 2d 89 (2009) (excited utterance factors and totality of circumstances)
People v. Williams, 193 Ill. 2d 306 (2000) (totality-of-circumstances approach to excited utterance)
People v. v. Stiff, 391 Ill. App. 3d 494 (2009) (time factor not controlling; spontaneity decisive)
People v. Parisie, 5 Ill. App. 3d 1009 (1972) (spontaneity and lack of opportunity to fabricate)
People v. Dominguez, 382 Ill. App. 3d 757 (2008) (illustrative of excited utterance spontaneity in distress)
People v. Leonard, 83 Ill. 2d 411 (1980) (circumstantial evidence may establish the startling event)
People v. Poland, 22 Ill. 2d 175 (1961) (circumstantial corroboration of startling event)
People v. Tenney, 205 Ill. 2d 411 (2002) (admission within discretionary standard; abuse of discretion review)