State v. Fahina, 400 P.3d 1177

Defendant Paula Fahina and Victim had a short sexual relationship and Fahina stayed overnight at Victim’s hotel room several times.
After consensual sex one morning, an altercation occurred during which Fahina allegedly produced a serrated knife, threatened Victim, forced oral sex, and threw her into a bed, breaking ribs and puncturing a lung.
Neighbors heard Victim scream “He’s going to kill me,” one saw Fahina flee with a large knife, and police found Victim distraught and injured outside the hotel office; police also found the room in disarray and a knife sheath on the bed.
At trial Victim testified to the assault; Officer testified briefly to statements Victim made to him at the scene. Defense objected to Officer’s testimony as hearsay invoking Crawford; prosecutor sought admission under the excited utterance exception (Utah R. Evid. 803(2)).
The trial court admitted Officer’s testimony under the excited utterance exception. The jury acquitted Fahina of sexual-assault-related charges but convicted him of aggravated assault (domestic violence). Fahina appealed, arguing the excited-utterance admission was erroneous and harmful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of hearsay objection	State: defense timely objected to hearsay; court ruled, so issue preserved	Fahina: argued on appeal that trial counsel only invoked Crawford and didn’t adequately argue excited-utterance exclusion below	Court: issue preserved because defense timely objected to hearsay and trial court ruled on excited-utterance question
Admissibility / Harm of excited-utterance testimony	State: Officer’s recounting of Victim’s statements admissible as excited utterance and, even if error, harmless	Fahina: Victim’s statements were a deliberate narrative to police (not spontaneous); admission bolstered Victim and was prejudicial	Court: Even assuming error, admission was harmless—testimony was brief, cumulative of Victim’s testimony, and the aggravated-assault conviction was supported by strong, independent corroborating evidence

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause limits testimonial hearsay)
State v. Smith, 909 P.2d 236 (Utah 1995) (explains rationale and elements of excited-utterance exception)
State v. Thomas, 777 P.2d 445 (Utah 1989) (admission of cumulative excited-utterance testimony held harmless error)
State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 (Utah 1992) (harmfulness requirement for evidentiary error)
Gressman v. State, 323 P.3d 998 (Utah 2013) (issues must be preserved, not specific arguments)
State v. Powell, 154 P.3d 788 (Utah 2007) (standard for showing that evidentiary error undermines confidence in verdict)