Portillo v. United States
1998 D.C. App. LEXIS 96, 710 A.2d 883, 1998 WL 225130 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a statement to qualify as an excited utterance and be admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, it must be related to a startling event and made while the declarant is still under the stress and excitement of that event, thereby ensuring a greater likelihood of accuracy and less chance of fabrication.
Facts:
- The complainant, a young adult woman, and the appellant, an adult male, shared a residence in Northwest, Washington.
- Two people flagged down police officers and led them to the shared residence where they encountered the complainant, who was upset and appeared to have been crying.
- Other adults, due to the complainant's lack of English fluency, conveyed that she wished to gather some belongings and leave.
- The officers observed the appellant nearby and assisted the complainant in departing the residence.
- The following day, a second officer, with the aid of a translator, interviewed the complainant for about fifteen minutes.
- During this interview, the officer observed bruises on the complainant's body and described her demeanor as "pretty calm."
- Toward the end of the interview, the complainant observed the appellant in a passing vehicle and exclaimed, “that’s him”!
- At trial, the complainant testified that the appellant had hit her, but she struck him first, and characterized their behavior as intimate rather than combative.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was convicted of simple assault after a non-jury trial in the trial court.
- Appellant’s counsel made a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence in the trial court, which was denied.
- Appellant appealed the conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence based on an evidentiary ruling regarding hearsay.
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 complainant's statement to a police officer, made the day after an alleged assault and when she appears calm and provides answers through an interpreter, qualify as an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Pryor, Senior Judge
No, the complainant’s statements to the officer on the day after the alleged assault do not qualify as an excited utterance. The court reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court erred in treating the complainant's out-of-court declarations as excited utterances. The court reiterated that excited utterances, as an exception to hearsay, must be related to a startling event and made while the declarant is under the stress of that event, with the application being fact-specific. In this case, the only identified startling event occurred the day before the interview. Crucially, the investigating officer, a government witness, described the complainant as "pretty calm" during the interview, contradicting the requirement of being under stress and excitement. Furthermore, the interview itself was characterized as deliberative, involving questions and an interpreter, rather than spontaneous. Given these circumstances, the record refuted a finding that the incident was sufficiently startling for her statements the next day to be the product of stress. The court concluded this was a misapplication of law regarding the requirements for excited utterances, and without these statements admitted as substantive evidence, the remaining evidence was insufficient for conviction.
Analysis:
This case underscores the stringent requirements for admitting hearsay evidence under the excited utterance exception, particularly emphasizing the temporal proximity to the startling event and the declarant's sustained state of emotional excitement. It clarifies that a significant lapse of time (even one day) combined with a calm demeanor during a structured interview will generally preclude a statement from qualifying, even if the declarant later identifies the assailant. The ruling highlights that the identification of a perpetrator, while potentially a new stimulus, does not automatically retroactively transform a prior calm statement into an excited utterance. This decision serves as a reminder to trial courts to carefully assess the factual basis for excited utterance claims, ensuring both the presence of a startling event and the immediate, continuing emotional impact on the declarant.
