Commonwealth v. Zagranski
408 Mass. 278, 558 N.E.2d 933, 1990 Mass. LEXIS 385 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'underlying event' that triggers the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule can be the declarant's startling discovery of a related event, such as an arrest, and not necessarily the primary crime itself. The utterance is admissible if it qualifies, characterizes, and explains the declarant's perception of that startling discovery.
Facts:
- The defendant, Fernandes, and the victim, Michael Molin, had business dealings concerning the sale of land owned by Molin.
- Approximately six weeks before Molin's death, Fernandes told a friend, Neal Dodd, about a plan to lure a Jamaican hotel owner to the area, acquire his hotel, and then kill him.
- A teenage boy encountered Fernandes in the woods with a shotgun, standing over Molin, who was wounded. The boy helped Fernandes load Molin into the trunk of a car after Fernandes claimed he had accidentally shot his best friend.
- Molin's body, which had multiple gunshot wounds, was later found in a storage space rented by Fernandes, along with Fernandes's shotgun.
- State police officers went to Fernandes's home to arrest him.
- Immediately after officers handcuffed Fernandes and told his wife he was under arrest for murder, she became very agitated and repeatedly yelled, 'Murder? Where is the body? Show me the body.'
- At the time of the wife's statements, the police had not yet discovered Molin's body.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Fernandes, was tried in a Massachusetts trial court.
- The jury convicted Fernandes of murder in the first degree.
- Fernandes appealed his conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which is the Commonwealth's highest court.
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 the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule permit the admission of a wife's statement, made immediately upon learning of her husband's arrest for murder, when the 'underlying event' prompting the statement is the arrest itself rather than the murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
Yes. A statement qualifies as a spontaneous utterance if it is made under the influence of an exciting event, and the underlying event that prompts the utterance can be the declarant's discovery of a fact, not just the primary crime itself. The wife's statements were admissible because the startling event was not the murder, which she did not witness, but her discovery of her handcuffed husband being arrested for murder in her home. Her excited reaction—'Where is the body?'—tended to qualify, characterize, and explain her perception of the arrest. A reasonable inference from her remarks is that she knew her husband had killed the victim and hidden the body, and she believed the arrest was unwarranted because the police had not yet found it. This inference made the statement relevant, and the judge acted within his discretion in admitting it.
Concurring - O'Connor, J.
This opinion does not directly address the issue of the spontaneous utterance. Instead, it argues that the evidence of the defendant's 'Jamaican hotel scheme' was admitted in error, as it was not part of a common scheme with the charged offense but was an independent crime. The evidence's only purpose was to portray the defendant as a 'bad man' likely to commit such a crime, which is precisely what the rule against prior bad acts evidence is meant to prevent. The author concurs in the judgment only because the other, properly admitted evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, but expresses hope that the court will reverse its 'sharp retrogression' on this issue in the future.
Analysis:
This decision expands the scope of the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule by clarifying the nature of the 'underlying event.' It establishes that the startling event need not be the crime itself, but can be a subsequent, related event, such as learning of a loved one's arrest. This allows for the admission of incriminating reactions from individuals who were not percipient witnesses to the crime but whose spontaneous statements upon learning about it reveal guilty knowledge. The ruling provides prosecutors with a wider basis for admitting hearsay statements that explain a declarant's perception of an arrest or investigation.
