The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District * Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________ No. 96-1401

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri Steven B. Sewell, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 1996 Filed: July 26, 1996

___________ Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and D O TY , * District Judge.

___________ DOTY, District Judge.The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Judge, United State s 1 District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- I. Defendant Steven Sewell ("Sewell") appeals from his convicti on under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1), for possessing a firearm as a thrice-convicted felon. We affirm. 1
Sewell's conviction arises from a traffic stop made on o r about Fe bruary 24, 1995. Defendant consented to a search of th e pass enger compartment, which revealed a loaded ammunition clip
. Defendant claimed to have no knowledge of the origins of thi s clip. When asked whether there were any weapons in the trunk of the car, defendant denied that there were. A subsequent search revealed a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol which had been placed atop a pile of clothing in the trunk. When this fact was brought t o defendant's attention while he waited in a patrol car, he state d that the gun belonged to his brother and he had not known it was in his trunk. At trial, the government brought a motion in limine to exclude Sewell's statements as hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802. In response, defendant argued that the statements were admissible wit hinthe exception for "excited utterances". Fed. R. Evid
. 803(2). The court orally granted the motion, stating that h e didn't believe that a person denying knowledge of a firearm, when one is found, is an utterance that had been created by a physical shock, stress or nervous excitement absent testimony to tha t effect.-3-

Defend ant's continuing objection to the ruling was noted
. Trial Tr anscript at 27. Sewell testified on his own behalf, an d stat edthat he did not have knowledge of the origins of th e ammunitionclip. However, he did not testify regarding hi s contemporaneous statement that he had not known the gun was in his car. Sewe ll was convicted and sentenced. He argues that hi s contemporaneous statement should have been admitted as an excited utt erance, and the trial's court's refusal to do so "severel y prejudiced" him.

II. The parties agree that this co urt may reverse the trial court only upon a showing that it ha s abused its discretion in excluding the te stimony as hearsay. U.S. v. Martin , 59 F.3d 767, 769 (8t h Cir. 1995). No such showing has been made here.
Th e justification for the "excited utterance" exception, a s this C ircuit has noted, derives from the teaching of experienc e that the stress of nervous excitement or physical shock "sti lls the reflective faculties," thus removing an impediment to truthf ulness. U.S. v. Elem , 845 F.2d 170, 174 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting 6 W igmore, Evidence § 1747, at 195 (Chadbourne rev. 1976)):
Si nce this utterance is made under the immediate an d unco ntrolleddomination of the senses, and during th e brief period when considerations of self-interest could not have been brought fully to bear by reasone d re flection, the utterance may be taken as particularl y trustw orthy(or at least lacking the usual grounds fo r untrustworthiness), and thus expressing the real tenor o f-4-

the sp eaker's belief as to the facts just observed by him.
Id. Defendant's argument that he w as merely reacting naturally to the "s hock" of an "extraordinarily startling event" - i.e., th e discovery of a weapon in his possession - is unconvincing. Where inc riminatingevidence is discovered in one's possession, i t requires only the briefest reflection to conclude that a den ial and plea of ignorance is the best strategy. This hardly comports with the spirit of disinterested witness which pervades the rule. There is no evidence that the defend ant's self-serving statement derived from an uncontrolled "excitement" experienced while learningof the evidence against him. The trial court's ruling reflects reasoned consideration of the requirements of the rule and is correct.
Affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT.