Opinion ID: 2193321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State v. Post Requirement of Independent Proof

Text: Kemp argues that an excited utterance is only admissible where there is some independent proof that the event could have occurred. [1] State v. Post, 901 S.W.2d 231, 235 (Mo.App. E.D.1995); accord State v. Kemp, 919 S.W.2d 278, 280-82 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). The Court does not need to determine whether independent proof that the event could have occurred is required, because it was present in this case. Jackie running frantically down the street partially naked at 8:30 a.m. on a Saturday, and the police finding three weapons in Kemp's apartment, two of which were loaded, provide independent proof that Kemp could have held Jackie at gunpoint all night in his apartment.