People v. Smith

177 Citing cases

  1. People v. Clark

    No. 330713 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2017)

    "The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy." People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (quotation marks and citation omitted). There are two primary requirements for an out-of-court statement to qualify under the excited utterance exception: (1) a startling event must have occurred, and (2) the resulting statement must have been made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event.

  2. People v. Gursky

    486 Mich. 596 (Mich. 2010)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no prejudice when the prosecutor did not use hearsay statements as substantive evidence

    Therefore, there was not a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.").People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 555; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The Supreme Court of the United States has elaborated on factors relevant to making this determination:

  3. Diaz v. Howes

    Case No. 1:09-cv-610 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2015)

    The trial court erred as a matter of law when it presumed prejudice and abused its discretion in granting relief where defendant failed to establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. People v. Smith, 456 Mich. 543, 556-557; 581 N.W.2d 654 (1998). This order has immediate effect.

  4. People v. Maue

    No. 364081 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2024)

    A trial court's decision regarding whether a declarant was still experiencing the stress of a startling event for purposes of MRE 803(2) is given "wide discretion." People v Smith, 456 Mich. 543, 552; 581 N.W.2d 654 (1998).

  5. People v. Fox

    No. 344253 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 10, 2020)

    "The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy." People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "The pertinent inquiry is not whether there has been time for the declarant to fabricate a statement, but whether the declarant is so overwhelmed that she lacks the capacity to fabricate."

  6. People v. Seahorn

    No. 346070 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 14, 2020)

    Whether a statement is admissible under the excited utterance exception is not strictly a question of time, but rather, a question of whether the declarant was still under the stress of excitement resulting from that event. People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 551-552; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). The excited utterance exception considers whether the declarant is overwhelmed by the stress of the event when she made the statement.

  7. People v. Louis

    No. 333312 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017)

    There are "two primary requirements for excited utterances: 1) that there be a startling event, and 2) that the resulting statement be made while under the excitement caused by the event." People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). "[T]here is no express time limit for excited utterances."

  8. People v. Howard

    No. 320695 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    "[I]n order to demonstrate that a conflict of interest has violated his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant 'must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance.' " People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 556; 581 NW2d 654 (1998), quoting Cuyler v Sullivan, 446 US 335, 350; 100 S Ct 1708; 64 L Ed 2d 333 (1980). In People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797 (1994), this Court adopted the ineffective assistance of counsel standard articulated by Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

  9. People v. Alexander

    No. 326466 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 14, 2016)

    Two requirements must be met for an out-of-court statement to qualify under the excited utterance exception pursuant to MRE 803(2): (1) a startling event occurred, and (2) the resulting statement was made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement instigated by the event. People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). Here, defendant does not contest the fact that a startling even occurred.

  10. People v. Gardner

    No. 323883 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    A "trial court's determination that a statement is admissible as an excited utterance is given wide discretion." People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 552; 581 NW2d 654 (1998). We review unpreserved evidentiary issues for plain error affecting substantial rights.