8/11/2019 138. Commonwealth v Coleman
2/3
which he perceived, and this declaration must be made so near
the occurrence both in time and place as to
exclude the likelihood of its having emanated in whole or in
part from his reflective faculties.
**************HERE BE RATIONALE***********
The rationale behind the res gestae exception is that the
startling event speaks through the verbal acts of the
declarant and vests reliability in an out-of-court statement
whose accuracy would otherwise be suspect. Thespontaneity of an
excited statement is the source of reliability and the touchstone
of admissibility.
Prof. McCormick has indicated that the term res gestae is more
generic than particular in nature. It
partakes of the characteristics of excited utterances.
*****************DF*****************************
Here, there is no doubt that the challenged testimony would fall
under the classic definition of
hearsay.The statements made over the phone more resemble a
verbalization of her perception of Colemans
attitude and behaviour than a declaration of emotion engendered
by a prior physical occurrence. For tat
reason, they do not fit the description of excited
utterance.
**************Present sense impressions*************
However, the court allowed the evidence to be admitted, because
they felt that there should be an
exception to the hearsay rule coveringpresent sense impressions,
i.e. declarations concerning conditions or
non-exciting events which the declarant is observing at the time
of his declaration. The indicium of reliability
of these kinds of statements is in view of the
contemporaneousness with the observation of the occurrence or
condition. Relative immediacy of the declaration insures that
there will have been little opportunity for
reflection or calculated misstatement. The declaration is
instinctive rather than deliberative.
Thus, the declarations over the phone are part of the present
sense impression exception to the
hearsay rule. Diane told her mother that Coleman would not let
her leave the apartment, that he would hangup the phone, and that
as soon as the phone had been hung up, he would kill her. The
mother testified that
Coleman could be heard shouting in the background, and Coleman
himself testified that he and Diane had
engaged in a loud argument immediately prior to the call. The
contemporaneity of the declarations and the
observation seem clear.
Moreover, the mothers failure to have observed the situation in
the apartment is not enough to
disallow application of the exception. Verification is not a
prerequisite to the admissibility of testimony under
the res gestae exception.
***************************************
Thus falling under the exception, the statement that hes going
to kill me is not a mere opinion
without basis in fact. That doctrine only applies to witnesses,
who must only testify in court to facts and not
to inferences, conclusions or opinions, and does not apply to
impressions of contemporaneous events or
conditions.
Judgment Affirmed
Pomeroy, J., concurring
