Opinion ID: 2287394
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hearsay Testimony of Other Witnesses

Text: After witnessing the shooting, O'Connor fled to a nearby house and phoned the police. The owner of the house and the police dispatcher with whom O'Connor spoke both testified at trial about what O'Connor told them immediately after the incident. Defendant made no objection to their hearsay testimony at trial, but contends on appeal that the court erred in allowing it. We, however, find no error in admitting the hearsay, least of all any obvious error. There can be little doubt that O'Connor's statements immediately after the shooting constitute excited utterances within the meaning of M.R.Evid. 803(2). For the hearsay exception for excited utterances to apply, (1) a startling event must have occurred, (2) the statements must relate to the event, and (3) they must have been made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement caused by the event. See State v. Walton, 432 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Me.1981). O'Connor testified that he went directly from the scene of the shooting to the neighbor's home. The neighbor testified that O'Connor was [v]ery emotional, very much in shock ... nervous, afraid, that he was shaking, his eyes were wide, and that his voice was excited, loud. The statements obviously related to the shooting O'Connor had just witnessed. Accordingly, these out-of-court statements properly went before the jury under the excited utterance exception.