Calvin Eugene King v. The State of Texas
953 S.W.2d 266 (1997)
Rule of Law:
A statement relating to a startling event is admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule if the declarant was still dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the event when the statement was made, with the passage of time being only one factor in the determination.
Facts:
- Billy Ezell, Leonard Johnson, and the appellant, King, were engaged in drug trafficking at the Cedar Sands Motel.
- Throughout the night and early morning, the three men were seen going in and out of King's motel room.
- Later that morning, King returned to his apartment covered in blood, possessing crack cocaine and blood-stained money.
- King confessed to his girlfriend that he had killed Ezell by hitting him with a lamp, strangling him with a cord, and slitting his throat.
- A motel owner discovered Ezell's body in the room registered to King.
- When police arrived, a woman at the scene, Angelita Williams, was visibly distraught and crying profusely.
- Within thirty minutes of police arriving, Williams told Officer Leslie Apple that she believed a man she knew as 'King' had possibly killed Ezell.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Texas charged King with capital murder in a Texas trial court.
- At trial, the State introduced testimony from Officer Leslie Apple regarding a statement made by a witness, Angelita Williams.
- King's counsel objected to the statement as inadmissible hearsay and improper opinion testimony.
- The trial court overruled the objections, finding the statement admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
- The jury found King guilty of capital murder.
- Following the punishment phase, the jury answered the special issues affirmatively, and the trial court sentenced King to death.
- An automatic direct appeal was filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters.
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 statement identifying a potential killer, made by a witness who was crying profusely and in an extreme emotional state within thirty minutes of police arriving at a murder scene, qualify as an 'excited utterance' exception to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Keller, J.
Yes, the statement qualifies as an excited utterance. The pivotal inquiry for the excited utterance exception is not the passage of time, but whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions caused by the startling event. Here, Officer Apple testified that Angelita Williams was crying profusely and in an extreme emotional state upon the discovery of the victim's body. This evidence supports the trial court's finding that she was still under the emotional stress of the startling event. Furthermore, the statement related to the event because the discovery of Ezell's death clearly prompted her statement about who might have killed him. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the flexible nature of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, prioritizing the declarant's subjective emotional state over a strict temporal proximity to the event. The court clarifies that the statement need not describe the startling event itself, but can be a conclusion or opinion prompted by the event, such as an identification of a potential perpetrator. This precedent grants trial courts considerable discretion in admitting statements from witnesses who remain emotionally affected by a traumatic event, even after some time has passed.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Calvin Eugene King v. The State of Texas (1997)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"