Opinion ID: 1966606
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Statements at the Police Station

Text: We first consider the factors described in Long, supra . The sisters gave their formal statements at the station approximately thirty to forty-five minutes after the robbery. That time lapse served as a cooling-off period during which the sisters achieved some physical and emotional distance from the robbery as they accompanied the police to the Citizen's Club and then to the station. The delay undermined the trustworthiness inherent in an admissible excited utterance. Additionally, neither sister suffered any serious injury that impaired her ability to think clearly or to reflect on the robbery as she gave her statement to the police at the station. The nature of the sisters' statements also suggests that the trial court erred in admitting the statements. Although a response to a question may constitute an excited utterance, here, the sisters would have had an opportunity to calm themselves and provide thoughtful answers to the questions the police posed during the formal interview at the station. Thus, this matter is unlike the situations in which we have recognized that a victim's spontaneous reaction guarantees trustworthiness. See, e.g., State v. Simmons, 52 N.J. 538, 247 A. 2d 313 (1968) (construing hearsay exception broadly and admitting as excited utterance victim's spontaneous response when presented with her attacker). In light of those factual circumstances we cannot conclude that Tiffany's and Tina's statements to the police at the station were of the type contemplated by N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2). Admitting those statements was inconsistent with the rationale of the excited utterance exception, i.e., that excitement suspends the declarant's powers of reflection and fabrication. Long, supra, 173 N.J. at 158, 801 A. 2d 221 (internal quotation marks omitted). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting them.