Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided September 1, 2011No. 08-CF-693Published

1DissentFisher, Associate Judge

“[T]he excited utterance exception is just that — an exception to the hearsay rule, and it should not be construed so broadly that it renders the hearsay rule ineffectual.” State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338, 865 A.2d 673, 690 (2005) (emphasis in original). “Over the years, some of our cases have imported a measure of flexibility into the admissibility calculus of spontaneous exclamations and excited utterances, but the fundamentals of the doctrine have remained intact.” Odemns v. United States, 901 A.2d 770, 778 (D.C.2006). On this record, I conclude that Mr. Brown’s utterances were neither…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  2. Beausoliel v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. State v. BranchSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005
  4. United States v. Lawrence KearneyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  5. Randolph v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API