Opinion ID: 1197771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Testimony of Zelda Maggart and Benjamin M. Butler

Text: 7. David's first contention is that the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of Zelda Maggart (Zelda) and Benjamin M. Butler (Butler) concerning events on January 8, 1990. Zelda, Debbie's mother, and Butler, the next-door neighbor of Debbie's parents, testified concerning hearsay statements Debbie made that evening. After David arrived unexpectedly at Debbie's parents' house, David fought with Debbie's father and physically removed Debbie's and his sons. In the meantime, Debbie ran out her parents' back door and into Butler's house. 8. Debbie then threw herself on Butler's sofa, curled into a fetal position sobbing, and exclaimed, He [David] is going to kill me. Debbie also stated that she would probably never see her boys again. The trial court admitted this testimony under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, which provides: The following [is] not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:.... A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. SCRA 1986, 11-803(B). 9. In State v. Maestas, 92 N.M. 135, 139-41, 584 P.2d 182, 186-88 (Ct.App.1978), the Court of Appeals considered the scope of the excited utterance exception. The victim in Maestas was severely beaten. At trial she could not or would not identify her assailant. Id. at 142, 584 P.2d at 189. The issue was whether the victim's out-of-court statements identifying the defendant as her assailant were admissible. The Court of Appeals held admissible the victim's statements made to her mother shortly after the beating while the victim was still under the stress of excitement from the beating. However, the Court held inadmissible the victim's statements to her sister-in-law later that evening and her sister the next morning. Id. at 141, 584 P.2d at 188. 10. The Court noted that New Mexico follows the Wigmore test for the admissibility of excited utterances. First. There must be some shock, startling enough to produce this nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting. Second. The utterance must have been before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent, i.e., while the nervous excitement may be supposed still to dominate and the reflective powers to be yet in abeyance. Third. The utterance must relate to the circumstances of the occurrence preceding it. Id. (quoting State v. Buck, 33 N.M. 334, 336-37, 266 P. 917, 918 (1927)). The Court also noted that, under this test, [t]here is no definite or fixed limit of time. Id. at 140, 584 P.2d at 187. Rather, each case must depend upon its own circumstances. Id. 11. In this case, the witnesses testified that Debbie was still sobbing and lying in a fetal position when she made the contested statements. There was ample evidence from which the trial court could conclude that Debbie was then experiencing shock resulting from David's intrusion into her parents' house, and that Debbie made the statements under the stress of and relating to this shocking circumstance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Debbie's hearsay statements through the testimony of Zelda and Butler.