Court Opinion

ID: 9703471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:57:58.854711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:49.380021
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
Although the majority has correctly set forth the law of the Commonwealth regarding excited utterances as an exception to the hearsay rule, I cannot agree that when a woman is raped by three (3) individuals between 2:00 and 4:00 a. m., and makes a statement at 7:30 a. m., two and one-half hours later, that such a statement could not be an excited utterance as a matter of law. Whether the witness was so affected by the event — in this case a multiple rape— so that her, “ . . . thought processes [were] inoperable . and . . . that her declarations were a spontaneous reaction to that startling event . . . ” is for the trier of fact in a particular case, not to be determined as a matter of law by a far removed and detached appellate court. I further dissent from the holding that evidence of prior sexual experience with one person is admissible to show consent to an alleged multiple rape, under any circumstances. Such a holding strains human experience and is a devastating blow to the dignity and sanctity of womanhood.
I dissent.