Court Opinion

ID: 9524751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:56:48.496693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:42.354299
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The trial court admitted the officer's testimony as fitting within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. I believe that it was error to do so. Indiana Evidence Rule 808(2) provides that "A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition" is an exception to the hearsay rule. For a statement to be admissible under the excited utterance exception the statement must be made while the declarant was under the stress of the excitement caused by the startling event. Ind. Evid. R. 803(2). The stress of the startling event is thought to reduce the likelihood of deliberate falsification. Jones v. State, 800 N.E.2d 624, 629 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). In determining whether an utterance is admissible under this exception, the court should look to whether the de-clarant had the time for deliberation and reflection. Hardiman v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1201, 1204 (Ind.2000).
Here, between one hour and one hour and forty-five minutes elapsed between the time that altercation here at issue ended and Mathis left the house and the time that the prosecuting witness made the challenged statement to the police officer. Although the prosecuting witness was "very upset," "crying" and "very emotional" when Officer Kunz arrived, she "'calmed down' after his arrival and 'felt safer when she was able to gain control of her emotions.'" Opimion, p. 1278. It was after "calming down" and "gaining control of her emotions" that the prosecuting witness made the statements to the officer.
A witness who has "calmed down" and "gained control" of her emotions is no longer under the stress of the startling event and has had time for reflection and deliberation. Accordingly, I believe it was error to admit the challenged statement under the excited utterance exception.
My colleagues, without reaching the issue of whether the statement qualified as an excited utterance, conclude that its admission was harmless error because it was cumulative of other evidence. Like many domestic disputes, this case turns upon the credibility of the prosecuting witness and the defendant. It is a case of "She said/he said." Although the police officer's evidence is cumulative of the testimony of the prosecuting witness, it bolsters that testimony which is not supported by any independent evidence. It also contradicts the defendant's testimony and casts doubt upon it.
*1283Can bolstering testimony (especially by a police officer) be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the entire case turns upon the credibility of the two witnesses? I think not, and for such reason, I would reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.