|
No. 133128
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
William J. Vailliencourt, Jr. |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Livingston - Reader, D.) |
|
|
| David Carl Barrett, |
|
Patrick K. Ehlmann |
| Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Authority>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
On May 17, 2004, Suzanne Bartel went to a neighbor’s home to call 911. The neighbor later testified that Bartel was hysterical as she pounded on the neighbor’s door. Bartel told the neighbor that she needed to call the police on her boyfriend (defendant David Barrett), who was chasing her with an ax and trying to kill her. Bartel continued to be extremely upset as she spoke with the 911 dispatcher. When a police officer arrived on the scene, he observed that Bartel was hysterical and unable to sit down, and that she had been crying. Bartel told the officer that she had had an argument with Barrett and locked herself in the bedroom. According to Bartel, Barrett punched a hole in the door, got into the room, and began beating her. Shortly thereafter, he picked up a hatchet, grabbed her around the neck, raised the hatchet, and told her he was going to kill her. Barrett then went into the back bedroom, and Bartel escaped to get help, she told the officer.
Police searched Bartel’s residence, which she shared with Barrett, but did not find him. They did find a hatchet and observed a 12-inch circumference hole in one of the doors, around the doorknob. Police also observed some marks on Bartel’s shoulders and one arm, and a cut on the side of her mouth.
Barrett was later arrested and charged with felonious assault and domestic assault (second offense). A preliminary examination took place in district court. Bartel was present in court but refused to testify. The prosecutor sought to introduce her out-of-court statements to her neighbor, the 911 dispatcher, and the police officer. But Barrett’s attorney objected, arguing in part that the statements were hearsay and therefore should not be admitted into evidence. The prosecutor responded that the statements were admissible as “excited utterances” under Michigan Rule of Evidence 803(2). The district judge ruled that the statements could not come into evidence, citing the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in People v Burton, 433 Mich 268 (1989). The Burtondecision requires that, in order for an excited utterance to be admitted into evidence, there must be independent proof of the event that gave rise to the excited utterance, the district judge said. Because there was no such independent evidence in Barrett’s case, the out-of-court statements were inadmissible, the judge ruled. Without the statements, there was insufficient evidence to bind Barrett over for trial, the judge concluded, and dismissed the case. Both the circuit court and Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The prosecutor now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The prosecutor argues that the plain language of MRE 803(2) does not require independent proof of the startling event as a condition of admitting an excited utterance into evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should overrule People v Burton, the prosecutor contends.
Top of Page
|
