Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Pelagio Jimenez was attacked and robbed by two assailants on a Friday. During the attack, he disarmed the two attackers and stabbed them both. Albert Thompson, a man whose patio was about 200 feet away from the scene, saw the attack and called the police. The police arrived a few moments later. One of the officers spoke to Jimenez in Spanish. The officer was able to discern two words in Spanish that Jimenez said: knife and two. Jimenez spoke a particular dialect of Filipino and a small amount of Spanish but could not understand or speak English. Jimenez was taken to the hospital, where a staff member called his daughter, Juliet Ralph. She went to the hospital but was unable to see or speak with her father, because he was in surgery. Hospital staff members told Ralph that they could not understand what Jimenez had been saying when he came into the emergency room. Ralph said that she was not able to speak with her father until Tuesday, because, after he was out of surgery, he was heavily medicated, unconscious or incoherent. On Tuesday, Jimenez was awake and alert. When Ralph asked Jimenez what had happened to him, Jimenez responded that “they robbed me again.” Ralph testified that he was “kind of mad” and that he was excited, because he had gotten even with his attackers. Jimenez spoke in a loud voice and gestured with his hands. Ralph explained that her father is ordinarily a calm person and that it was unusual for him to be so upset. During her testimony, Ralph repeated Jimenez’s statement over the appellant’s objection. On direct appeal, the appellant complained that the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay statement. The court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. HOLDING:The court of appeals’ judgment is affirmed. While intervening circumstances may diminish the stress from an exciting event, the opposite also can be true, the court decides. Each case that involves a period of unconsciousness between the time of the startling event and the statement must be reviewed in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Rather than say that unconsciousness is a substitute for continuity of the stress of the event, the court concludes that the declarant’s state of consciousness is a factor to consider in the analysis. Trial courts and reviewing courts should address this fact within the factors for a traditional analysis to determine whether a hearsay statement falls within the excited utterance exception. The court finds”McCormick on Evidence” to be helpful in dealing with situations in which a long period of time has passed between the startling event and the statement. It states: “A useful rule of thumb is that where the time interval between the event and the statement is long enough to permit reflective thought, the statement will be excluded in the absence of some proof that the declarant did not in fact engage in a reflective thought process. Testimony that the declarant still appeared”nervous’ or”distraught’ and that there was a reasonable basis for continuing emotional upset will often suffice.” 2 John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence 272, at 207-08 (5th ed. 1999). The court concludes that the declarant need not necessarily have been unconscious for the entire period between the startling event and the statement, so long as the record supports the reasonable conclusion that the declarant did not have a meaningful opportunity to reflect. The court determines whether Jimenez was still dominated by the emotions, excitement, fear, or pain of the attack when he made the statement by considering the following factors: 1. the length of time between the occurrence and the statement and the circumstances; 2. the demeanor of the declarant; 3. whether the statement was made in response to a question; and 4. whether the statement is self-serving. The court finds that all of the factors weigh in favor of admission. The court concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement made by Jimenez. OPINION:Tom Price, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.