Opinion ID: 2009804
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Testimony by Officer Perkins

Text: Officer Perkins's testimony relating statements made by Cookson at the scene of the arrest was admitted in evidence pursuant to the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. M.R.Evid. 803(2). McLaughlin contends that after ten minutes Cookson was no longer under the stress of the events and therefore her statements were not admissible as excited utterances. The Maine Rules of Evidence provide that a statement is admissible although it is hearsay, if it is 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. M.R.Evid. 803(2). Before admitting such a statement, the court must find three things: (1) that a startling event occurred; (2) that the hearsay statement related to the startling event; and (3) that the hearsay statement was made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by that event. State v. Walton, 432 A.2d 1275, 1277 (Me.1981). The crucial question is how long the state of excitement may be found to last. This is a preliminary question for the judge. M.R.Evid. 803 adviser's note (emphasis added). There is no bright-line time limit for the requisite state of excitement. Rather, the determination is left to the judge's discretion. State v. Leone, 581 A.2d 394, 398-99 (Me.1990) (no abuse of discretion in exclusion of statements when many minutes passed between time of event and time of statements); State v. Ryne G., 509 A.2d 1164, 1168 (Me.1986) (no abuse of discretion in exclusion of exculpatory statement made by defendant seven minutes after a car accident). In State v. Lafrance, 589 A.2d 43, 46 (Me.1991), we vacated a conviction based on the improper admission of hearsay under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, but in that case nearly a day had passed before the statements were made. Decisions by federal circuit courts of appeals interpreting the identical federal rule support the District Court's decision to admit the testimony against McLaughlin. See Haggins v. Warden, Fort Pillow State Farm, 715 F.2d 1050, 1058 (6th Cir.1983) (child declarant made statements over an hour after the events); United States v. Golden, 671 F.2d 369, 371 (10th Cir.1982) (statements made fifteen minutes after an assault and a high-speed flight from scene of assault). The time elapsed between the events and the statement offered as evidence is simply a factor used to determine whether the declarant was still in the necessary state of excitement. Michael H. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 6753 (interim ed. 1992). Other factors include the age of the declarant, her physical or mental state, the character of the startling event, and the subject matter of the statements made. Based on the facts before us, we cannot say that the District Court's finding that Cookson's statements qualified as excited utterances was clearly erroneous. Even if the court had erred, that error would be harmless in that it is highly probable that the error did not affect the judgment. State v. Lafrance, 589 A.2d at 46. In this case, Cookson's testimony established the elements of assault  that McLaughlin intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury or offensive physical contact to her. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 207. She testified to the initially mutual argument and shoving match, and then to McLaughlin's final blow of the evening  the blow for which the court convicted him of assault. Officer Perkins's testimony added nothing that Cookson had not already established.