From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ward

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 26, 2001
105 Wn. App. 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

reasoning that even though evidence showed that victim had time to fabricate before he placed a 911 call and did actually lie to the 911 operator, his statement to police officer who arrived on the scene was admissible as an excited utterance, because by that time the victim had nearly bled to death, had no pulse, and was barely conscious, such that his statement to the officer “was unlikely to have resulted from the exercise of choice or judgment”

Summary of this case from Brown v. U.S.

Opinion

No. 44668-1-I.

March 26, 2001. UNREPORTED OPINION

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-1-01045-9, Ann Schindler, J., entered April 26, 1999.


Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, J., concurred in by Webster and Baker, JJ.


Summaries of

State v. Ward

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Mar 26, 2001
105 Wn. App. 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)

reasoning that even though evidence showed that victim had time to fabricate before he placed a 911 call and did actually lie to the 911 operator, his statement to police officer who arrived on the scene was admissible as an excited utterance, because by that time the victim had nearly bled to death, had no pulse, and was barely conscious, such that his statement to the officer “was unlikely to have resulted from the exercise of choice or judgment”

Summary of this case from Brown v. U.S.
Case details for

State v. Ward

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. MARK CALVIN WARD, Appellant

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Mar 26, 2001

Citations

105 Wn. App. 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)
105 Wash. App. 1027

Citing Cases

Brown v. U.S.

) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also 2 McCormick, Evidence § 272 at 255 (6th ed.2006) (noting…