Opinion ID: 1925538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: hearsay testimony of deborah carpenter

Text: Davis argues that the testimony of Deborah Carpenter, which in part repeated statements made by Wendy Ann Davis, constitute inadmissible hearsay. Rule 803(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence (MRE) states: RULE 803. HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS; AVAILABILITY OF DECLARANT IMMATERIAL. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under stress of excitement caused by the event or condition. The comment to Rule 803(2) states: (2) Excited Utterance The underlying theory of the excited utterance exception is that circumstances may create such an excited condition that the capacity for reflection is temporarily impeded and that statements uttered in that condition are thus free of conscious fabrication. As in the present sense impression exception, the essential ingredient here is spontaneity. With respect to the time element, the issue is the duration of the excited state. This, depending on the exact circumstances of a case, can vary greatly. The declarant need not be a participant but only an observer of the event which triggered the excitement. Our Mississippi Rules of Evidence come from the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), and federal courts hold that the admission or exclusion of testimony under Rule 803(2) is discretionary with the trial court. Kenosha Auto Transport Corp. v. Lowe Seed Co., 362 F.2d 765 (C.A.Ill. 1966). We likewise find that the competency of excited utterances is a matter largely discretionary with our trial courts and we find no abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony of Deborah Carpenter. See generally Evans v. State, 547 So.2d 38, 41 (Miss. 1989) (neighbor testified to what victim said immediately following her attack); Harris v. State, 394 So.2d 96, 98 (Miss. 1981) (spontaneous statement by victim determined to be competent, thus it was admissible); Gill v. State, 485 So.2d 1047, 1050 (Miss. 1986) (neighbor testified regarding spontaneous declaration made by victim). Wendy Ann's statements to her aunt were related to a startling event while she was under the stress of the excitement caused by the event. Indeed, her statements give a classic example of when such statements are admissible under MRE 803(2).