"Hearsay—an out of court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted—is generally not admissible." United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802). Sully challenges the application of two hearsay exceptions that allowed the introduction of hearsay statements from four witnesses.
Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Fed.R.Evid. 801, 802). Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence because it is unreliable and not subject to cross-examination in court.
Erica's statements to both declarants came in the recent aftermath of the assault and typically would qualify as reliable statements of present sense impression or excited utterance. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)-(2); United States v. Dean, 823 F.3d 422, 427-28 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 605-06 (8th Cir. 2014). The statements were made "while the event was fresh in her memory and before she had an opportunity to recant as not infrequently done by victims of domestic abuse."
Sharpe Butte made these statements soon after he was stabbed four times and before he had received any medical treatment. Given their proximity to the stabbing and the subject matter of the statements, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these statements as captured on Officer Roe's body camera, under Rule 803(2).See United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining the factors relevant to Rule 803(2) analysis); United States v. Clemmons, 461 F.3d 1057, 1061 (8th Cir. 2006) (same). As to Sharpe Butte's other statements made in conversation with Officer Roe, it is difficult to understand how they could have been offered for the truth of the matters they assert.
“The rationale behind this particular exception ‘derives from the teaching of experience that the stress of nervous excitement or physical shock stills the reflective faculties, thus removing an impediment to truthfulness.’ ” United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir.2014) (quoting Brunsting v. Lutsen Mtns. Corp., 601 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir.2010)). The record supports the trial court's holding that Brown experienced a startling event and that Brown's and Cinkan's statements related to the incident.
Regarding the hearsay issue, we conclude the district court properly excluded the testimony as “an out of court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 604 (8th Cir.2014). Bekric nevertheless argues the excluded testimony should have been admitted to explain the course of the investigation.
I properly admitted portions of Ricky Stewart's statements as excited utterances pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2). See United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 695 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Clemmons, 461 F.3d 1057, 1061 (8th Cir. 2006) (To decide whether declarant remains “under the stress of excitement” caused by the event, courts consider: “[1] the lapse of time between the startling event and the statement, [2] whether the statement was made in response to an inquiry, [3] the age of the declarant, [4] the physical and mental condition of the declarant, [5] the characteristics of the event, and [6] the subject matter of the statement.”)).
“In other words, statements made by a declarant while that declarant remains under the stress or shock of an event retains a ‘guarantee of trustworthiness' that is not present when the declarant has the opportunity for reflection and deliberation.” United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brunsting v. Lutsen Mtns. Corp., 601 F.3d 813, 817 (8th Cir. 2010)).
Statements made in response to questioning are usually only excluded if made during "detailed, interrogation-style questioning that might negate the use of the excited utterance exception." Id. (quoting United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2014)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has stated that "[i]f the declarant's excitement level is severe, then even statements made in response to questioning may be admitted."
United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77, 85 (8th Cir. 1980). See also cf. United States v. Graves, 756 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2014) (finding victim's statement to investigating police officer that defendant pointed a shotgun at her and threatened to shoot her were admissible under excited utterances exception to hearsay rule, even though the statements were made 30 minutes after the incident, and victim recanted her statements at trial, where defendant had discharged the shotgun several times after arguing with the victim, police officer testified that victim was still shaking and appeared to have been crying when he interviewed her, her answer was in response to a general question by the officer, and her statements indicated that the defendant had put the shotgun to her head). Furthermore, the Court finds Petitioner's provision of his version of events, even when in response to an inquiry by the dispatcher, to be self-serving (Resp.