holding that five-year-old’s statement made at least five days after incident was not excited utterance
How later courts described this case
- holding that five-year-old’s statement made at least five days after incident was not excited utterance
- holding that “a psychologist does not provide ‘medical’ treatment as contemplated by” I.R.E. 803(4)
- conviction reversed when Court could not say that beyond a reasonable doubt there was no reasonable possibility that improperly admitted hearsay statements contributed to the conviction
- noting that child did not make statements to psychologist for purposes of medical treatment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McDEVITT, Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
The Court succinctly and with elan sets forth the evidentiary issues raised. The Court wisely and correctly rules on those evidentiary issues. I concur in Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion.
I cannot, however, concur in the Court’s conclusion in Part I that there was a “reasonable possibility” that the evidence introduced in error could have contributed to the conviction in this case.