People v. Connolly
406 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 347 Ill. Dec. 238, 942 N.E. 2d 71 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement qualifies as an excited utterance and does not violate the Confrontation Clause if it is made in response to a sufficiently startling event, without time for fabrication, while the declarant is still affected by the event's excitement, and the primary purpose of police questioning was to address an ongoing emergency.
Facts:
- Dina Perritano, a neighbor, was awakened by an argument between Phillip Connolly and his wife, Melissa Connolly, outside their home.
- Perritano observed Melissa seated in her vehicle and Phillip standing in the open doorway, holding their 19-month-old son.
- Perritano heard Melissa threaten to call the police during the argument.
- Perritano later saw the child sitting in the middle of a two-lane street while Phillip leaned over Melissa, screaming at her.
- A car slowly approached, stopped, and Phillip picked up the child and left the scene.
- Melissa remained in her vehicle until police arrived a few minutes after Phillip left.
- Deputy Jon Muehlbauer arrived five to seven minutes after being dispatched and observed Melissa to be upset, agitated, and nervous.
- Melissa told Deputy Muehlbauer that Phillip had pulled her out of her vehicle, battered her about the head, and put their child down in the middle of the street.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting Melissa Connolly's statements to a police officer as an excited utterance, and did the admission of these statements violate Phillip Connolly's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, when the statements were made minutes after a domestic dispute while Melissa was agitated and her child was missing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Carter
Yes, the trial court properly admitted Melissa Connolly's statements to the police officer as an excited utterance, and their admission did not violate Phillip Connolly's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court determined that domestic violence is an inherently startling occurrence, and Melissa's statements, made within minutes of the altercation while she was visibly upset, agitated, nervous, and concerned about her missing child, were sufficiently spontaneous with no opportunity for fabrication. This satisfied the excited utterance exception to hearsay. Furthermore, the court found Melissa's statements to be non-testimonial because Deputy Muehlbauer's primary purpose in questioning her upon arrival was to address an ongoing emergency (Melissa's safety and the child's whereabouts), not to gather evidence for prosecution. The officer's actions, including his subsequent search for and return of the child, supported this finding, consistent with the Davis v. Washington framework for assessing testimonial statements.
Dissenting - Justice Wright
No, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Melissa Connolly's statements, as they did not meet the requirements for an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, and therefore, their admission was improper. Justice Wright argued that the events, primarily a heated verbal altercation, were not shown to be sufficiently startling for this declarant, especially since the neighbor testified that such arguments were not unusual for the couple. The time lapse of 5 to 10 minutes between the separation of the couple and the officer's arrival provided sufficient opportunity for Melissa to reflect and fabricate her statements, thus negating the spontaneity required for the exception. Mere nervousness and anxiety, in Justice Wright's view, are not enough to meet the 'sufficiently startling event' threshold. The dissent contended that the foundation for an excited utterance should not vary based on the domestic nature of the offense or the State's evidentiary needs, concluding that Melissa’s out-of-court statement constituted inadmissible hearsay and required reversal of the defendant’s conviction and a new trial on both charges.
Analysis:
This case offers important guidance on the application of the excited utterance exception and the Confrontation Clause in domestic violence contexts. By emphasizing the 'totality of the circumstances,' including the inherently startling nature of domestic violence and the victim's emotional state, the court provides flexibility for admitting statements even with some delay. The decision further clarifies the 'ongoing emergency' doctrine, underscoring that an emergency can persist beyond the immediate physical threat, especially when children are involved, justifying police questioning without triggering Confrontation Clause concerns. This approach can facilitate prosecutions in domestic violence cases where victims may be reluctant to testify or recant, but it also raises questions about the scope of 'emergency' and the potential for eroding confrontation rights.
