concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to ask leading questions because “[t]he victim’s hesitancy to testify concerning this matter was understandable”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to ask leading questions because “[t]he victim’s hesitancy to testify concerning this matter was understandable”
- holding that a nine-year old’s statements elicited by police officer between forty-five minutes and one hour and fifteen minutes after an assault fell within the excited utterance exception
- applying exception where evidence “suggested ... that [nine-year-old declarant] had struggled with the defendant, that he had threatened her with serious harm and that he had unsnapped and pulled down her jeans. The stress and fear that such an occurrence would impose upon a young girl cannot be discounted.”
- explaining that assault with intent to commit rape requires the specific intent to commit rape
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion on the grounds that the evidence of assault with *93 intent to commit rape was so strong that submission of either simple assault or assault by striking, beating or wounding was not required.