United States v. Magnan
863 F.3d 1284
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Early morning March 2, 2004: David Magnan entered a rural Oklahoma residence and shot four people; three victims died (including Jim Howard and Karen Wolf); Lueilla (Lucilla) McGirt was shot twice, paralyzed, and later died.
- McGirt identified Magnan as her shooter on three occasions: (1) inside the house to Officer Jack Thompson (≈1.5–2 hours after the shooting), (2) in the ambulance to medic Anke Bernhardt (≈2 hours after), and (3) at the hospital to her sister Carolyn West (≈4–5 hours after).
- At trial the Government offered those out-of-court identifications over Magnan’s hearsay objections; the district court admitted them under the excited-utterance exception (Fed. R. Evid. 803(2)).
- Magnan was convicted in federal court of three counts of murder in Indian Country (18 U.S.C. § 1153) and sentenced to three consecutive life terms; he appealed the admission of McGirt’s statements.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed the admission of all three statements as excited utterances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McGirt’s out-of-court identifications qualify as excited utterances under Rule 803(2) | Government: statements were contemporaneous with and related to the startling event; McGirt remained under stress given her injuries and circumstances | Magnan: statements were made long after the event, in response to questioning, and while intoxicated/able to reflect — so not under the stress of excitement | Court: Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; all three statements admissible as excited utterances |
| Admissibility when statements were elicited by questions (medic/paramedic) | Government: questioning was brief/open and declarant’s severe condition kept her under stress; spontaneity not required | Magnan: responsive answers are less trustworthy and fall outside the exception | Held: Questions do not preclude the exception; severe excitement can support admission even when prompted |
| Time lapse effect (1.5–2 hrs; ~2 hrs; 4–5 hrs) on excited-utterance analysis | Government: time is only one factor; traumatic nature and declarant’s continuing distress sustain contemporaneousness | Magnan: passage of hours permitted reflective thought, undermining the exception | Held: Time alone insufficient; factual record (serious injuries, shock, anxious demeanor, consistent identifications) supports district court’s exercise of discretion |
| Whether Confrontation Clause issues apply | Government: not raised by defendant; statements treated under hearsay exception only | Magnan: did not argue statements were testimonial on appeal | Held: Confrontation Clause not implicated because defendant did not assert testimonial character; court resolved on hearsay/excited-utterance grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 606 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir.) (standard and deference for excited-utterance review)
- United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2009) (factors for assessing whether statement made under stress of event)
- United States v. Frost, 684 F.3d 963 (10th Cir.) (responsiveness to questioning does not automatically exclude excited-utterance application)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (distinguishing testimonial concerns and noting severity of injury affects credibility, not necessarily admissibility)
- United States v. Clemmons, 461 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2006) (observing that severely injured declarants can still make admissible excited utterances)