Can police officers testify to entire victim interviews as excited utterances? West Valley City v. Hutto Explained

In West Valley City v. Hutto, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical boundaries of the excited utterance exception to hearsay rules, reversing convictions where a trial court improperly admitted an entire police interview as excited utterances.

Background and Facts

Wade Hutto was convicted of assault and criminal mischief based on domestic violence allegations. The victim did not testify at trial. Instead, Officer Jensen recounted a 30-45 minute interview with the victim that occurred six hours after the alleged incident. The victim had traveled six blocks to her mother’s apartment and remained there during the intervening time. The trial court admitted Jensen’s testimony under Rule 803(2) as excited utterances, despite defense objections regarding confrontation rights.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two fundamental questions: whether an entire police interview narrative can qualify as excited utterances, and whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that the victim’s stress had subsided after six hours in a safe, familiar environment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied Utah’s three-pronged test for excited utterances: (1) a startling event occurred, (2) the statement was made while under stress of excitement from the event, and (3) the statement relates to the startling event. The court emphasized that the excited utterance exception permits specific spontaneous outbursts, not “ongoing discourse of an excited individual.” The court found insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that stress had subsided, noting the six-hour delay, familiar environment, and lack of evidence about the victim’s emotional state during the intervening period.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important limits on hearsay exceptions. Practitioners seeking to admit delayed statements must present specific evidence of continuous, uninterrupted stress from the original event. The prosecution should have called the victim’s mother to establish what occurred during the six-hour interval. The ruling also clarifies that emotional reactions when retelling traumatic events do not automatically qualify as excited utterances—the excitement must stem from the original startling event, not from reliving it during questioning.