State v. Young
160 Wash.2d 799 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A declarant's subsequent recantation does not automatically render an excited utterance inadmissible; a trial court may weigh the credibility of the recantation against the statement's reliability. The startling event required for an excited utterance can be established by circumstantial evidence surrounding the statement, such as the declarant's behavior and emotional state, without direct, independent proof.
Facts:
- Henry Eugene Young began a romantic relationship with Kayla, the mother of 11-year-old K.L.
- On the afternoon of May 3, 2002, Young was at home with K.L. and her younger brother while Kayla was at work.
- K.L. ran across the street to her neighbor Anne Johnson's house, crying and appearing 'really scared' and 'upset.'
- K.L. told Johnson, Jason Barnes, and Perry Lomax that Young had put his hand down her pants, touched her buttocks under her underwear, and tried to give her money.
- Witnesses who had known K.L. for years described her as 'crying really hard' and 'borderline hysterical' while recounting the event.
- When Barnes confronted Young moments later, Young denied knowing what Barnes was talking about, stated he did not want police involved, and was later seen jumping over a backyard fence to leave the property.
- Months later, after Kayla had married Young while he was incarcerated, K.L. wrote a notarized letter recanting her allegations.
- In the letter, K.L. stated she fabricated the story because she was angry with Young for dating both her mother and her baby-sitter, Johnson.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Henry Eugene Young with one count of attempted child molestation in the first degree in state trial court.
- Prior to trial, the court held an evidentiary hearing and ruled that K.L.'s hearsay statements to three witnesses were admissible under the excited utterance exception.
- At trial, the jury heard testimony about K.L.'s initial statements and also heard K.L. testify for the defense that her initial statements were lies.
- The jury convicted Young of attempted child molestation in the first degree.
- Due to prior convictions, the trial court sentenced Young, as a persistent offender, to life in prison without the possibility of release.
- Young (appellant) appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted Young's (petitioner) petition for review on the excited utterance issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, are a child's out-of-court statements alleging molestation admissible when the child later recants the statements and the only corroboration of the alleged startling event is circumstantial evidence surrounding the making of the statements?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairhurst, J.
Yes, the statements are admissible. A declarant's recantation does not create a bright-line rule of inadmissibility for an excited utterance. The trial court has the discretion to weigh the credibility of the recantation against the evidence of the statement's reliability and spontaneity. Furthermore, while the bare words of a statement cannot prove the startling event, circumstantial evidence—such as the declarant's emotional state, appearance, and behavior as observed by witnesses—can sufficiently corroborate that a startling event occurred. Here, the testimony about K.L.'s hysterical condition from multiple witnesses who knew her well provided sufficient corroboration, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the initial statements reliable and the later recantation, which occurred after her mother married the defendant, not credible.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
No, the statements are not admissible. The reliability of an excited utterance depends on the existence of a startling event, which must be established by independent evidence. The declarant's emotional state or 'histrionics' are not independent evidence; they are part of the statement itself. If a declarant can fabricate the words of a statement, they can also fabricate the emotional display accompanying it. Allowing the emotional delivery of a statement to prove the underlying event creates a circular and unreliable standard, undermining the very foundation of the hearsay exception. The error was not harmless because the inadmissible statements formed the core of the State's case.
Concurring - Alexander, C.J.
Yes, the conviction should be affirmed, but for different reasons. The dissent is correct that the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing—which consisted only of K.L.'s emotional state—was insufficient to corroborate the startling event. However, the trial court's error in admitting the statements at that stage was rendered harmless because additional corroborating evidence was properly introduced at trial. This later evidence, including Young's preemptive denial about wanting police and his fleeing over a fence, provided the necessary independent corroboration. Therefore, the ultimate admission of the statements and the resulting conviction were proper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies Washington's excited utterance doctrine, particularly in cases with recanting victims like child abuse or domestic violence. By rejecting a bright-line rule against admitting recanted statements and allowing circumstantial evidence to prove the startling event, the court provides trial judges more flexibility. It shifts the focus from requiring independent proof of the underlying crime to assessing the reliability of the utterance itself at the moment it was made. However, as the dissent argues, this approach risks 'bootstrapping,' where a convincingly feigned emotional state could be used to admit a fabricated story, potentially lowering the evidentiary bar in cases lacking other forms of corroboration.
