Opinion ID: 2381388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motions Hearing

Text: The government filed a motion in limine seeking the admission into evidence of a tape-recorded 911 call made by Frederick to police following the robbery. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and listened to the tape-recorded 911 call before ruling that the evidence was admissible as an excited utterance, and for the most part, as within the prior identification exception to the hearsay rule. [2] In making its ruling, the trial court stated: It seems to me that the law is quite plain in this jurisdiction, and having listened to the tape, it's clear to me that the complainant was in a high state of excitement at the time he made the call. He was nervous, he was upset, it was made shortly after the offense. And it seems to me it clearly comes within the definition of an excited utterance, and it seems to me moreover that 90 percent of it comes within a statement of identification the defendant made.... Smith's attorney argued that Frederick's statements on the tape showed his ability to reflect before making the call to the police, thereby taking away any semblance of spontaneity. Specifically, Smith argued that Frederick was able to walk the few blocks home after the crime and make the call, which consisted of a series of questions and answers, rather than a spontaneous statement. He argued further that fifteen minutes elapsed between the incident and the phone call, providing time for reflection by the declarant. The trial court rejected these arguments, stating in pertinent part: Well, I think it clearly comes within the definition of an excited utterance. First of all, there is clearly the presence of a serious occurrence, that is, this man was robbed at gunpoint, and secondly, it clearly caused a state of nervous excitement and shock in the declarant as evidenced from the declarant's tone of voice during the statement. The declaration was certainly made within a short period of time after the occurrence and thus gives assurance that the declarant had not in my view reflected upon the statement. The mere fact that it was 15 minutes rather than a few minutes, than a lesser time is not dispositive.... And likewise, the fact that some of the statements were made in response to questions does not eliminate their character as excited utterances. And finally, ... there are present in this case circumstances which in their totality suggest that these statements were spontaneous and they are sincere.... This was an extremely serious event. This man had been robbed at gunpoint. He was almost breathless during this telephone call. Anybody who listens to this tape, and I would certainly expect any reviewing court to listen to the tape, it seems to me has to be persuaded that this man was excited. He was upset, he was concerned and that came across in this conversation. Alternatively, the trial court ruled that ninety to ninety-five percent of the statement was admissible under the identification exception to the hearsay rule. At the conclusion of Frederick's motion's testimony, Smith's attorney requested that the trial court reconsider its ruling because the testimony showed that Frederick did not want to call the police when he arrived home, but his mother persuaded him to do so after some fifteen minutes. As a result of Smith's request for reconsideration, the trial court recalled Frederick to the stand in an effort to determine whether his excited state at the time of the 911 call was caused by the occurrence of the robbery or by his discussion with his mother. In response to the court's questions, Frederick testified that he was initially reluctant to call the police, but his mother insisted. He said he was very upset and angry and was real nervous when he made the call because he had never been robbed at gunpoint. The trial court reaffirmed its original ruling, stating: I'm going to stay with my original ruling. I think it was correct. I don't think the issue is ... whether the person makes the spontaneous utterance, and I think the more  I think the more appropriate word here is the excited utterance of his own accord or whether it's prompted by somebody else.... And I think the issues that are important are what my state of mind was at the time I made the statement. And it's clear to me and I credit this man's testimony that he was angry, he was upset, he'd never been robbed before, and those are the kinds of circumstances that Nicholson says under the first of the three prongs in Nicholson tend to give the statement credence and tend to justify its admissibility under this exception, and so it will be received. [3] B. The Trial Frederick testified at trial that on December 11, 1990, at approximately 10:30 p.m., he was on his way home from Roosevelt High School where he attended evening classes. As he walked on New Hampshire Avenue, he saw a small blue Chevette, which was making a lot of noise, with a broken side window covered with a black plastic bag. As Frederick continued walking, he lost sight of the car. He made a right turn onto Gallatin Street where he saw two men approaching from approximately fifteen feet away. One of the men, later identified as Smith, had a gun in his hand. As the two men approached closer, Smith cocked the gun. Smith's companion tried to take a punch at [Frederick], but Frederick stepped back and punched the man instead. As Smith came toward Frederick with the gun in hand, he asked, Hey, cuz, what's up with the jacket? At the time, Frederick was wearing a multicolored leather jacket with the number 44 on the back and the sleeves, which he had purchased just four days earlier. Frightened by the weapon, Frederick removed the jacket and threw it to the ground. Smith picked it up and told his companion to see if Frederick had any money in his pockets. Frederick emptied his pockets immediately, dropping his keys, cigarettes, ten dollars and some change in the process. Smith then told Frederick to walk away slowly. As Frederick complied, he heard Smith say, I should shoot you, but the second assailant told Smith not to. Fearing for his life, Frederick began running away in a zigzag pattern to avoid being shot. He took a circuitous route home to prevent the two assailants from following him home. During the robbery, Frederick had noticed the blue Chevette he had seen earlier parked in an alley nearby. As he came to his backyard, Frederick called out to his mother. When she opened the back door, he told her that he had just been robbed at gunpoint. His mother told him to call the police, but he was reluctant to do so. After arguing for approximately five to six minutes, Frederick called the police. The jury heard the tape of the 911 call, which had been the subject of the in limine motion. The police arrived approximately fifteen minutes after Frederick's call. Frederick spoke to the police for a half hour before they drove him to the area where the robbery had occurred. He could not locate the robbers or the blue Chevette; however, Frederick found his keys, cigarettes, and the change he had taken from his pockets in the area where he had been robbed. Less than a week after the robbery, on the morning of December 17, 1990, Frederick was at work when Smith came into the office. [4] When Frederick saw Smith, he recognized him immediately as the robber. According to Frederick, Smith was wearing the same black hat he wore the day of the robbery. Frederick turned to his co-worker, Lieutenant Quarles-El, and said [t]his is the guy that robbed me. Smith walked to the counter and began talking to Major Abdul-Malik. Frederick then walked behind the counter, faced Smith, and said Yeah, I do like my 44 jacket. Smith looked as if he recognized Frederick and quickly removed his hat and started moving around. Then, Smith moved toward a wall where it was more difficult for Frederick to see him. Smith, who appeared to be quite jittery, started to leave, but his counselor, Major Abdul-Malik, said, Hey, come back, I haven't finished yet. [5] Smith signed his name to the visitor's log before leaving, and Frederick got his name from the log sheet and asked his supervisors for access to Smith's file. Frederick contacted the police and reported that the person who robbed him had just come into his office and that his name was Raphael Smith. The next day, Frederick met with Detective Harold Moseley of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). During the meeting, Frederick reviewed two photo arrays, consisting of nine photographs each. Frederick identified Smith from the second set of photographs, and he told Detective Moseley that he was 100 percent sure of the identification. On March 6, 1991, Frederick identified Smith as the gunman at a lineup held at police headquarters. More than two months after the robbery, the police searched Smith's house, but they could not find Frederick's jacket. [6]