State v. Taylor, 32 A.3d 440

Taylor moved in with the victim and her children, then was asked to leave; she obtained a protection order in March 2010.
In March 2010, Taylor forcibly entered the victim's home at night, attacked her with a tool, and threatened her life, while her children slept nearby.
The victim contacted her ex-husband to take the children to safety, then immediately called 9-1-1; the 9-1-1 call was later admitted at trial under the excited utterance exception.
Duct tape, a wonder bar, and a screwdriver appeared in Taylor's vehicle after the break-in; the State introduced a photograph linking the tools to the scene.
Taylor defended with an alternate-suspect theory and an alibi; the jury convicted him on burglary, domestic violence assault, domestic violence criminal threatening, and obstructing the report of a crime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of the 9-1-1 call as an excited utterance	Taylor argues the call was not under ongoing excitement.	State contends the call remained under stress of the event, satisfying Rule 803(2).	The court did not clearly err; the call qualified as an excited utterance.
Admissibility of duct tape evidence linking to the break-in	Evidence of duct tape and related items was irrelevant or prejudicial.	Evidence is relevant to prove intent or modus operandi and connection to the break-in.	The court did not abuse its discretion; the duct tape evidence was admissible.
Sufficiency of evidence of burglary with intent to commit a crime	Entry with intent to commit a crime was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence showed unlawful entry with the intent to threaten or assault, supporting burglary.	Evidence supported a jury finding of entry with the specific intent to commit a crime.
Admission of alternative-suspect evidence	State should be allowed to challenge alternative-suspect evidence; exclusion was improper.	Court should not allow that body of evidence if not properly admitted.	Not reached on the affirmance; court affirmed overall judgment without resolving this issue.

State v. Watts, 2007 ME 153 (Me. 2007) (excited utterance factors and timing of statements)
State v. Robinson, 2001 ME 83 (Me. 2001) (foundational requirements for admissibility under Rule 104)
State v. Rega, 2005 ME 5 (Me. 2005) (detailed excited utterance analysis in complex incident)
State v. Ahmed, 2006 ME 133 (Me. 2006) (timing of statements after initial events)
State v. Barnes, 2004 ME 38 (Me. 2004) (fits excited utterance when delayed but promptly related to event)
State v. Hafford, 410 A.2d 219 (Me. 1980) (alternative timing scenarios for excited utterances)
State v. Lafrance, 589 A.2d 43 (Me. 1991) (not excited utterance when a day later without ongoing excitement)
State v. True, 438 A.2d 460 (Me. 1981) (necessity of ongoing stress for excited utterance)
State v. Cook, 2010 ME 81 (Me. 2010) (burglary standard and inferential intent at time of entry)