Court Opinion

ID: 9717644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:07:44.769345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:54.482492
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
I believe that the testimony of the deputy was clearly admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. MRE 803(2). The complainant’s statements arose out of a startling and traumatizing occurrence: the sexual assault committed by her uncle. Although the assault occurred the previous evening, it would not have been unusual for a child to be either in shock or afraid to speak about the assault while in the presence of her assailant. In my opinion, the passage of time between the assault and the child’s statements to the deputy would not have rendered her statements inadmissible under any circumstances. The startling occurrence was still fresh in her mind.
Likewise, I would also find the child’s statements to her mother admissible under the same exception. Although the child may have appeared calmer after speaking with the deputy, I do not believe that her statements to the deputy preclude *51a determination that her statements to her mother were not excited utterances. In my opinion, the child was still suffering from the stress of the assault when she spoke with her mother.
I do agree that the physician’s testimony, as it related to the identity of the complainant’s assailant, was erroneously admitted, but I would find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. I do not believe that the physician’s statement was a crucial factor in the determination of defendant’s guilt.
As to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the matter was remanded to the trial court for a hearing on this question. Having observed the attorney at trial and having presided at the hearing, the trial judge was in a position to determine whether counsel was effective or not. My review of the record does not show that the trial judge’s finding of effective assistance was clearly erroneous.
I would, therefore, affirm defendant’s conviction.