At approximately 3:10 a.m. on November 5, 2017, in San José, California, police officers responded to a radio dispatch indicating that a man had hit his girlfriend with with a baseball bat. The woman had called 911 screaming into the phone, "My boyfriend is attacking me with a Louisville Slugger!" Because the girlfriend refuses to testify. At trial, the prosecution attempts to admit the 911 statement into evidence over the objections of the defense attorney.
Does the 911 statement constitute hearsay? Is there an exception to the hearsay rule? If the trial judge declares the statement NOT hearsay, what will the defense ague? What will the prosecution argue? (hint: Crawford) How should the judge decide? (50 points)
"Fast" Eddie Jones is cruising down the highway in his tricked-out Honda when he is pulled over by a police officer. The officer runs the plates and discovers an outstanding warrant for Eddie's arrest. The policeman immediately detains Eddie and conducts a search incident to arrest and finds a small amount of meth-amphetamine on Eddie's person.
The database used by the policeman was out-of-date and needed to be updated. Had it been updated, the database would have NOT shown any outstanding warrants for Eddie.
Eddie's lawyers file a motion to suppress the drugs found by the policeman. What will they argue? How will the prosecution likely respond? If you were the judge, how would you decide? (30 Points)
When Khloe Kardashian was married to Lamar Odom, she witnessed a telephone conversation between Lamar and a well known prostitute. She overheard Lamar make several incriminating statements concerning his "professional" relationship with the prostitute and the protestation ring she was involved. Khloe divorced Lamar shortly thereafter. Police, relying on information received from an unrelated witness, lawfully raided a popular Beverly Hills hotel and legally arrested several call-girls and several of their clients, including Lamar Odom.
Prosecutors attempt to introduce the incriminating statements (communications) made by Lamar. Should the incriminating statements be allowed? Khloe is ready and willing to testify against Lamar. Pursuant to the California Spousal Privilege Statutes, should the judge allow it? (20 points)
Chester led a youth-group that provided church sponsored recreational activities. He occasionally drove the church bus that transported the children to and from the church. In addition, Chester was one of several church staff members who monitored sleep-overs at the church. He also hosted sleep-overs at his home in Lodi. Each of the three victims testified to having been approximately seven to ten years old when they first met Chester at church, and to having become close to him through the youth-group. Each rode the bus with Chester, and spent the night at the church or at his home in Lodi. All remembered sitting on Chester’s lap while he touched them inappropriately, and some remembered performing fellatio on him, while others remembered him performing cunnilingus on them, and having sexual intercourse.
Chester was charged with several counts of sexual assault of the Lodi-house girls.
Before trial, Chester moved to suppress evidence of two other girls (now adults) that would testify that Chester began to sexually assault them when they were approximately eight years old. The assaults ranged from touching their breasts and vaginal area to sexual intercourse, which occurred at Chester’s then home in Oakley. According to the girls, they had been shown pornographic movies, and Chester had photographed the girls in the nude. One of the girls testified that she was fourteen years old the last time Chester had sexual intercourse with her at his Oakley residence. The other girl testified that at his Oakley home, when she was ten or eleven years old, Chester had undressed her and digitally penetrated her, performed cunnilingus on her and had her perform fellatio. Chester was never charged with any crime associated with the Oakley-house girls.
The trial court allowed the testimony of the two Oakley-house girls pursuant to Rule 404(b), which provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show that the person acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Chester was convicted on all counts of sexual assault regarding the Lodi-house girls. On appeal, Chester’s attorneys argue that the trial court errored in allowing the testimony of the Oakley-house girls.
If you were a justice on the appellate court, would you have allowed this testimony? Why or why not?
Yes, the 911 statement constitutes hearsay. However, there is an exception to the hearsay rule that would allow the statement to be admitted into evidence. The exception is known as the excited utterance exception. The excited utterance exception applies when a person makes a statement while in a state of excitement or stress caused by an external event. The purpose of this exception is to allow statements that would otherwise be considered hearsay to be admitted into evidence because it is assumed that a person would not lie while in such a state.
The defense will argue that the 911 statement does not fall under the excited utterance exception because the woman was not in a state of excitement or stress at the time she made the call. They will also argue that the woman had time to calm down between the time she was attacked and the time she made the call, so her statement cannot be considered an excited utterance.
The prosecution will argue that the 911 statement does fall under the excited utterance exception because the woman was clearly in a state of distress when she made the call. They will also argue that even though she had time to calm down between the time of the attack and the time she made the call, her statement was still made while she was under the influence of the event.
Based on the arguments of both sides, it is likely that the judge will rule that the 911 statement is admissible as an excited utterance.
Copyright © 2012 - 2026 Apaxresearchers - All Rights Reserved.