excited utterance exception in Delaware

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 278 (noting that the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule was recognized prior to the adoption of Article I, § 7).

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 275-77 (holding that a statement admissible under the excited utterance exception does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Delaware or federal constitution); Williamson v. State, Del.Supr., 707 A.2d 350, 355-56 (1998) (finding that recordings of 911 calls admitted under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions were admitted under "firmly rooted exceptions”) (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)); see also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ("In White , for instance, we h

2018According to the State, when the context is considered—the victim was held up in the dark, by a man in a ski mask, pointing a gun, which led to a struggle, and a shot fired with the victim not knowing whether he had been hit—it was expected that the victim would still be in shock and scared when he spoke with the officer. (6) This Court reviews the Superior Court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for abuse of discretion.8 “An abuse of discretion occurs when a court has exceeded the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances, or so ignored recognized rules of law or practice to produce

2017Evans v. State, 2004 WL 1790191 , at *2 (Del. 2004) (holding that two out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception even though the statements were made four hours and nine hours after the shooting because the declarant was still under the stress of excitement caused by that event); Dixon v. State, 996 A.2d 1271, 1276 (Del. 2010) (holding that 911 call made fifteen minutes after a shooting was made under the stress of excitement and was properly admitted under excited utterance exception); Warren v. State, 774 A.2d 246, 253 (Del. 2001) (holding that 911 c

2017Evans v. State, 2004 WL 1790191 , at *2 (Del. 2004) (holding that two out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception even though the statements were made four hours and nine hours after the shooting because the declarant was still under the stress of excitement caused by that event); Dixon v. State, 996 A.2d 1271, 1276 (Del. 2010) (holding that 911 call made fifteen minutes after a shooting was made under the stress of excitement and was properly admitted under excited utterance exception); Warren v. State, 774 A.2d 246, 253 (Del. 2001) (holding that 911 c

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 275-77 (holding that a statement admissible under the excited utterance exception does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Delaware or federal constitution); Williamson v. State, Del.Supr., 707 A.2d 350, 355-56 (1998) (finding that recordings of 911 calls admitted under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions were admitted under "firmly rooted exceptions”) (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)); see also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ("In White , for instance, we h

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 275-77 (holding that a statement admissible under the excited utterance exception does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Delaware or federal constitution); Williamson v. State, Del.Supr., 707 A.2d 350, 355-56 (1998) (finding that recordings of 911 calls admitted under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions were admitted under "firmly rooted exceptions”) (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)); see also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ("In White , for instance, we h

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 275-77 (holding that a statement admissible under the excited utterance exception does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Delaware or federal constitution); Williamson v. State, Del.Supr., 707 A.2d 350, 355-56 (1998) (finding that recordings of 911 calls admitted under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions were admitted under "firmly rooted exceptions”) (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)); see also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ("In White , for instance, we h

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 275-77 (holding that a statement admissible under the excited utterance exception does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Delaware or federal constitution); Williamson v. State, Del.Supr., 707 A.2d 350, 355-56 (1998) (finding that recordings of 911 calls admitted under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions were admitted under "firmly rooted exceptions”) (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)); see also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ("In White , for instance, we h

2001See Wright, 497 U.S. at 822 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ("[W]e are unpersuaded by the State’s contention that evidence corroborating the truth of a hearsay statement may properly support a finding that the statement bears 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ”); see also id. at 820, 110 S.Ct. 3139 ("[T]he 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness’ required for admission under the Confrontation Clause must ... be drawn from the totality of circumstances that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.”) (emphasis added).

2001See Wright, 497 U.S. at 822 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ("[W]e are unpersuaded by the State’s contention that evidence corroborating the truth of a hearsay statement may properly support a finding that the statement bears 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ”); see also id. at 820, 110 S.Ct. 3139 ("[T]he 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness’ required for admission under the Confrontation Clause must ... be drawn from the totality of circumstances that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.”) (emphasis added).

2001See United States v. Iron Shell, 8th Cir., 633 F.2d 77, 85-86 (1980).

2001See Gannon, 704 A.2d at 275-77 (holding that a statement admissible under the excited utterance exception does not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Delaware or federal constitution); Williamson v. State, Del.Supr., 707 A.2d 350, 355-56 (1998) (finding that recordings of 911 calls admitted under the present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions were admitted under "firmly rooted exceptions”) (citing White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 355-56 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992)); see also Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ("In White , for instance, we h