Brown v. United States
27 A.3d 127, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 522, 2011 WL 3847408 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement made hours after a startling event may still be admissible under the excited utterance exception if the declarant's severe physical shock and pain negated their capacity for reflection, or if a subsequent startling event, such as being roused to consciousness in a chaotic scene, prompts the statement.
Facts:
- Martin “Tony” Brown lived with his eighty-nine-year-old grandfather, Howard Brown.
- On December 7, 2006, Howard Brown was last seen uninjured between noon and 1:00 p.m.
- At approximately 5:00 p.m. that day, neighbors discovered Howard Brown lying in a massive amount of blood with severe, actively bleeding head wounds.
- A neighbor, Patricia Johnson, roused Brown and asked who had done this to him, to which he responded, 'Tony.'
- Another neighbor, Malanda Mias, also asked Brown who did this to him, and he again said 'Tony' while sounding out of breath.
- In the ambulance, a third neighbor, Shirron Spivey, heard Brown tell medical staff that 'Tony did it.'
- Sometime after the assault, Martin Brown told a neighbor he was afraid to visit his grandfather in the hospital in case his grandfather recognized him.
- Howard Brown died from his injuries on March 28, 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Martin “Tony” Brown in the trial court with second-degree murder while armed.
- Prior to trial, the court held a hearing and ruled that the victim's statements identifying 'Tony' were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
- A jury found Brown guilty of second-degree murder while armed.
- Brown, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, challenging the admission of the victim's statements.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a victim's statement identifying an assailant, made up to five hours after an attack while the victim is in severe physical shock and has just been roused to consciousness, qualify as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Oberly, Associate Judge
Yes, the victim's statement qualifies as an excited utterance. The court held that the victim's severe physical shock, profuse bleeding, and barely conscious state suspended his capacity for reflection and fabrication, making his statements admissible despite the potential time lapse. The court applied the three-part test for an excited utterance: (1) a serious occurrence causing nervous excitement or physical shock, (2) a declaration made within a short period to prevent reflection, and (3) circumstances suggesting spontaneity. The court found that the brutal assault satisfied the 'serious occurrence' and 'physical shock' requirement. While up to five hours may have passed, the time element is not controlling, and the court reasoned that the victim's severe medical condition negated his ability to premeditate. Furthermore, the court suggested that being 'nudged into consciousness' amidst a chaotic scene of screaming neighbors constituted a new, secondary startling event that immediately preceded the utterance, ensuring its spontaneity.
Dissenting - Fisher, Associate Judge
No, the victim's statement does not qualify as an excited utterance. The dissent argued that the statements were neither spontaneous nor excited and should have been excluded. It contended that the proponent failed to meet the three required factors. First, there was no evidence of 'nervous excitement'; the victim spoke 'very plainly,' and his 'shock' was a medical condition from blood loss, not the emotional state required by the exception. Second, the potential five-hour gap provided ample time for reflection, and the majority's 'new startling event' theory is invalid because the statement must relate to the event causing the excitement, not just be triggered by a memory. Third, the statements lacked spontaneity as they were made in response to direct questions, not blurted out, and the fact that others were yelling 'Tony' at the same time undermined their reliability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the excited utterance exception, particularly regarding the time element. It establishes that severe physical injury and shock can effectively 'stop the clock' on the opportunity for reflection, allowing statements made hours after an event to be admitted. The court's introduction of a 'secondary startling event'—the victim being roused to consciousness—creates a new avenue for admitting statements that might otherwise be barred due to a time lapse. This precedent provides prosecutors a stronger basis to admit crucial victim identification testimony in cases where victims are discovered long after being incapacitated.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. United States