Opinion ID: 2116292
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: independent proof

Text: The question becomes did the photographs [7] depicting the victim's injuries represent independent evidence that the assault occurred? In Burton, this Court examined whether hearsay statements were admissible as excited utterances under MRE 803(2) without independent evidence of the startling event. Id., 271, 445 N.W.2d 133. The excited utterances sought to be admitted were statements by the complainant, later recanted, alleging that the defendant had sexually assaulted her. Id. The independent evidence of the alleged sexual assault that was offered showed no more than a stressful event with sexual connotations. Id., 299, 445 N.W.2d 133. It consisted of evidence that defendant attempted to remove the complainant's underwear and shoes from his home and a description of the complainant's physical appearance when making her allegations. Id., 297, 445 N.W.2d 133. We find the present case distinguishable on the basis of the independent evidence establishing the assault. In this case, photographs showing the victim's injuries were taken near the time the beating is alleged to have occurred. In addition, the injuries depicted in the photographs were consistent with the type of injuries sustained after a beating. Therefore, we conclude that the photographs provide credible independent evidence of the assault, permitting the admission of the victim's statement as a present sense impression. This analysis is consistent with that made in other jurisdictions. In People v. Brown , [8] an anonymous 911 telephone call, admitted under the present sense impression exception, was found to have been sufficiently corroborated by testimony of police officers arriving shortly after the call. In People v. Chaparro, [9] the testimony of a police officer provided adequate corroboration to permit admission of a 911 telephone call. Therefore, the recording in this case was admissible as a present sense impression exception to the rule barring hearsay, because the injury photographs presented credible independent evidence of the assault. We note also that, because the admission was made under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it satisfied the constitutional requirement of reliability. Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 817, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.