Opinion ID: 1060393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: admission of griffin's statements into evidence

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce the statements that Griffin made to Officer Roberts concerning the incidents on the Alcoa Highway. Specifically, Appellants contend that Griffin's statements were inadmissible hearsay. We disagree. Rule 803 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence provides, in relevant part, The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (2) Excited Utterance. 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. Tenn. R. Evid. 803(2). The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated that in order for a statement to be admissible under this rule, (1) there must be a startling event or condition, (2) the statement must relate to the startling event or condition, and (3) the statement must be made while the declarant is under the stress or excitement from the event or condition. State v. Gordon, 952 S.W.2d 817, 820 (Tenn.1997). In addition, [i]t is well established that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and their rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. McLeod, 937 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tenn.1996). During the hearing on this issue, Officer Roberts testified that on the night of February 21, 1992, he received a report of a possible fight involving individuals in a black Camaro with one headlight. When Roberts arrived at the scene approximately two minutes later, he found Griffin sitting in the bed of a pickup truck. Upon viewing Griffin, Roberts concluded that Griffin had been in a fight because he was not wearing a shirt, he had scratches on his upper body, and he had a cut behind his left ear. Roberts testified that when he asked Griffin what had happened, Griffin stated that he had been in an argument with some friends and they had put him out of a car. Roberts testified that at this time, Griffin's voice was shaky, his lip was quivering, and he appeared to be scared. When Roberts asked for further information, Griffin said, I just can't tell you man, and he looked like he was going to cry. Griffin also looked around as if he was looking for someone. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Griffin's statements under Rule 803(2). First, it is clear that the altercation during which Griffin sustained scratches and a cut qualifies as a startling event under the rule. As noted by the supreme court, the possibilities are endless because any event deemed startling is sufficient. Gordon, 952 S.W.2d at 820 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Second, Griffin's statements all related to the altercation. As noted by the supreme court, considerable leeway is available, because the statement may describe all or part of the event or condition, or deal with the effect or impact of that event or condition. Id. (citation and internal quotations omitted). Third, Griffin made his statements while he was still under the stress or excitement of the altercation. For this third requirement, [t]he ultimate test is spontaneity and logical relation to the main event and where an act or declaration springs out of the transaction while the parties are still laboring under the excitement and strain of the circumstances and at a time so near it as to preclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Roberts testified that he responded to the scene within two minutes of receiving the call and that when he talked to Griffin, Griffin's voice was shaky, his lip was quivering, and he appeared to be scared and ready to cry. Thus, the evidence shows that Griffin was still under the stress or excitement of the altercation when he made his statements. [10] This issue has no merit.