U.S. v. Feltham, 58 M.J. 470

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Excited utterances

1. (this Court has articulated a three-prong test for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance:
2. (1) the statement must be spontaneous, excited, or impulsive rather than the product of reflection and deliberation; (2) the event prompting the utterance must be startling, and; (3) the declarant must be under the stress of excitement caused by the event)
3. the theory underlying the admission of an excited utterance is that persons are less likely to have concocted an untruthful statement when they are responding to the sudden stimulus of a startling event; this Court has recognized that the implicit logical premise for admission of an excited utterance is that a person who reacts to a startling event or condition while under the stress of excitement caused thereby will speak truthfully because of a lack of opportunity to fabricate
4. this Court has stated that the time between the startling event and the excited utterance is one factor to consider when determining whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance; however, this Court has also stated that a lapse of time between the event and the utterance creates a strong presumption against admissibility
5. the lapse of any particular period of time is not the focus of the excited utterance rule; the critical determination is whether the declarant was under the stress or excitement caused by the startling event
6. the victim's statements to his roommate regarding his being sodomized by the accused were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay where there was less than one hour lapse of time between the startling event and the utterance; the victim made his statements at the first opportunity; the statements were not in response to questioning; and the victim was still under the stress of the excitement caused by the event

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Generally

1. when reviewing a decision of a Court of Criminal Appeals on a military judge’s discretionary ruling, we typically have pierced through that intermediate level and examined the military judge’s ruling; we then decide whether the Court of Criminal Appeals was correct in its examination of the military judge’s ruling

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. the standard of review of a military judge’s ruling admitting or excluding an excited utterance is an abuse of discretion; this Court will reverse for an abuse of discretion if the military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or if his decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law