State v. Young
161 P.3d 967 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hearsay statement may be admitted as an excited utterance even if the declarant later recants the statement and the only proof of the startling event is circumstantial evidence, such as the declarant's behavior and emotional state, independent of the bare words of the statement itself.
Facts:
- Henry Eugene Young began a romantic relationship with Kayla, the mother of 11-year-old K.L.
- On May 3, 2002, K.L. returned home from school to find Young at her house while her mother was at work.
- Shortly after, K.L. ran across the street to her baby-sitter Anne Johnson's house, crying and appearing very scared and upset.
- K.L. told Johnson and two other adults, Jason Barnes and Perry Lomax, that Young had put his hand down her pants, grabbed her buttocks, and tried to give her money.
- When Barnes confronted Young about K.L.'s accusation, Young stated he did not want trouble or the police, even though Barnes had not mentioned calling the police.
- A few minutes later, Barnes and Lomax returned to confront Young again and saw him jumping over the backyard fence.
- On August 24, 2002, several months after the incident and after her mother had married Young, K.L. wrote a notarized letter recanting her accusations, stating she had fabricated the story.
- At trial, K.L. testified that Young did not touch her and that she had lied.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Henry Eugene Young with one count of attempted child molestation in the first degree in the trial court.
- In a pretrial hearing, the trial court ruled that the alleged victim K.L.'s hearsay statements to three witnesses were admissible under the excited utterance exception.
- A jury found Young guilty of attempted child molestation in the first degree.
- Based on the conviction and prior offenses, the trial court sentenced Young, as a persistent offender, to life in prison without the possibility of release.
- Young, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of Washington, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Washington granted a petition for review filed by Young, as petitioner, on the issues related to the excited utterance exception.
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 trial court abuse its discretion by admitting a hearsay statement as an excited utterance when the only corroboration of the startling event is circumstantial evidence related to the declarant's condition, and the declarant later recants the statement?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairhurst, J.
Yes, a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting such a statement. A declarant's subsequent recantation does not create a bright-line rule of inadmissibility; the trial court may weigh the credibility of the recantation against the circumstances of the original utterance. Furthermore, while the bare words of a statement cannot prove the startling event, circumstantial evidence independent of those words—such as the declarant's behavior, appearance, and condition—can be sufficient to corroborate that a startling event occurred. The reliability of an excited utterance stems from the declarant's heightened emotional state, which stills the capacity for fabrication, not from independent proof of the underlying event itself. Imposing a requirement of independent proof of the event confuses the standard for admissibility of evidence with the weight the jury should give that evidence.
Concurring in result - Alexander, C.J.
Yes, the conviction should be affirmed, but the trial court erred in admitting the statements based only on the pretrial hearing evidence. The declarant's excited behavior alone does not corroborate the cause of the excitement and is insufficient to prove a startling event occurred. However, the error was harmless because additional corroborating evidence—specifically, Young's statements about not wanting police involved and his fleeing over a fence—was later introduced at trial, which provided sufficient independent corroboration of the startling event.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
No, the trial court abused its discretion. For a statement to be admissible as an excited utterance, there must be independent evidence corroborating that a startling event actually occurred, as this is the foundation of the exception's reliability. Relying on the declarant's emotional state, or 'histrionics,' is no more corroborative than the bare words themselves, as a person capable of fabricating a story is also capable of faking the emotion. Admitting these statements without independent corroboration allows unreliable hearsay to form the basis of a conviction, and the error was not harmless as this evidence was central to the State's case.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the requirements for the excited utterance exception in Washington, particularly in child abuse cases where evidence is often limited. By holding that circumstantial evidence of the declarant's state is sufficient to establish the 'startling event,' the court lowers the foundational requirement for admitting such statements. This decision empowers trial courts to admit testimony that might otherwise be excluded, shifting the ultimate credibility determination to the jury. It establishes that a victim's recantation, a common occurrence in intrafamily abuse cases, does not automatically bar their initial, spontaneous statement from being considered by the fact-finder.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Young