756 F.3d 602
8th Cir.2014Background
- Graves and his fiancée L.K. had an all-day argument; Graves returned late, kicked in the door, confronted L.K. in the bedroom while holding a loaded shotgun, argued 10–15 minutes, then fired the shotgun five times as he left.
- A neighbor called 911; Officer Dana Lyons arrived about 30 minutes after the shooting report, knocked, and L.K. answered visibly shaking and crying.
- In response to Lyons’ question “What’s going on here?”, L.K. rapidly described the incident, including that Graves had pointed the shotgun at her and threatened to shoot her.
- At trial L.K. recanted, testifying she lied to the officer out of anger; Graves was convicted of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Domestic Assault by an Habitual Offender and sentenced to 21 months.
- The district court admitted L.K.’s statements to Officer Lyons under the hearsay exception for excited utterances (Fed. R. Evid. 803(2)); Graves appealed the admission as an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether L.K.’s statements to police were admissible as an "excited utterance" under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) | L.K. (defense for Graves) argued the declarant was no longer under stress when she spoke, so the statements were inadmissible hearsay | Gov't argued statements were made shortly after a startling event while L.K. was visibly upset, so they bore sufficient trustworthiness to qualify as excited utterances | Court held district court did not abuse its discretion: statements admissible as excited utterances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jongewaard, 567 F.3d 336 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Bercier, 506 F.3d 625 (8th Cir.) (definition of excited utterance exception)
- Brunsting v. Lutsen Mtns. Corp., 601 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.) (rationale that stress stills reflective faculties)
- United States v. Clemmons, 461 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir.) (factors for evaluating excited utterance admissibility)
- United States v. Wilcox, 487 F.3d 1163 (8th Cir.) (continuity of stress as a consideration)
- United States v. Marrowbone, 211 F.3d 452 (8th Cir.) (continuity-of-stress analysis)
- United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir.) (statements admitted 15–30 minutes after shooting where declarant remained visibly upset)
- Iron Shell v. [Unnamed], 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir.) (admission allowed for statements made 45–75 minutes after assault)
- United States v. Elem, 845 F.2d 170 (8th Cir.) (detailed interrogation can negate excited utterance claim)