holding that a three-year-old victim’s statements to his mother within hours of the act of molestation were admissible under the excited utterance exception, Fed. R.Evid. 803(2)
How later courts described this case
- holding that a three-year-old victim’s statements to his mother within hours of the act of molestation were admissible under the excited utterance exception, Fed. R.Evid. 803(2)
- upholding conviction over hearsay challenge of a young victim's childish statements that appellant had "stuck his tutu in my butt" and hurt him, noting that such language is entirely appropriate to a child of his tender years
- affirming conviction where doctor was allowed to testify to statements describing the injury under that state’s Rule 803(4), but was required to omit the identity of the assailant
- holding admissible statements, made in response to questioning by his mother, by a three year old who had been sexually assaulted by his babysitter
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by State v. Ochoa, 576 So. 2d 854 (1991)
We therefore decline to follow the procedure outlined in Nick.
The opinion
HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I would reverse this case for Miranda error if I were free to do so, because I adhere to the views I expressed in dissent in United States v. Rodriguez-Gastelum, supra, 569 F.2d 482 . I concur in an affirmance of the conviction on the Miranda point under the compulsion of the majority opinion in United States v. Rodriguez-Gastelum, supra.