Preview:

State of Maryland v. James E. Harrell - No. 123, 1996 Term EVIDENCE - Excited Utterances -- To be admissible, hearsay statement must have a relationship to the startling event.

Circuit Court Baltimore County Case # 95 CR 4265

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 123 September Term, 1996 _______________________________________

STATE OF MARYLAND v. JAMES E. HARRELL

_______________________________________ Bell, C. J. Eldridge Rodowsky Chasanow Raker Wilner Karwacki, Robert L. (Retired, specially assigned) JJ. _______________________________________ Opinion by Chasanow, J. _______________________________________ Filed: November 18, 1997

In the instant case, we are called upon to determine whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, Maryland Rule 5-803(b)(2). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals reversing the trial court's conviction of James E. Harrell under Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl. Vol.) Article 27,

Download State v. Harrell.pdf

Maryland Law