Defendant also claims that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence of duress. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erred in excluding, on hearsay grounds, certain statements allegedly made by defendant to her roommate at the adult foster care home. On the second day of trial, the prosecution moved to strike defendant's roommate from it's witness list. The prosecutor alleged that the roommate's proposed testimony, consisting of defendant having told the roommate that she had unprotected sex with the victim, that she did not tell him that she was HIV positive because she was afraid he might kill her, and that the victim would not leave her room until they had sex, was essentially exculpatory, self-serving inadmissible hearsay. The trial court found the testimony to be inadmissible.
Hearsay is inadmissible as substantive evidence except as the rules of evidence otherwise provide.
Here, defendant sought to introduce exculpatory statements that she did not tell the victim she was HIV positive because she was afraid he might kill her and that the victim would not leave the room until he and defendant had sex. These statements were not offered against defendant, but were offered by defendant to support her claims of lack of consent and duress. Defendant's statements to her roommate, which were made a day after the last incident of sexual intercourse between defendant and the victim, were not admissible as a present sense impression because the statements were not made while defendant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter. Three criteria must be met before a statement can be admitted into evidence as an excited utterance. Mich App 557.