Opinion ID: 2324508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence Properly Admitted

Text: In this case, Wallace testified that Calm was scared, still crying, and slouched down and that he didn't want to get out of the car when he identified Pressey as one of the robbers. Vettori testified that Calm was seated in the back seat of the car, appeared to be nervous, was shaking, and [h]is voice was shaky. The record reflects that Calm's identification of Pressey as one of the robbers satisfied all three of the foundational requirements to qualify as an excited utterance under D.R.E. 803(2). The record does not establish that the act of Wallace forcing Calm to return to the scene was a superseding event that cause[d] Calm to be excited, not the prior robbery. Accordingly, Pressey has not shown that the trial judge abused her discretion in admitting Calm's statement into evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.