## Facts

- David E. Bryant was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, possession of cocaine, and resisting an officer without violence based on an August 22, 2006 incident.
- Shortly after the encounter, Bryant called 911, identified himself, and reported that an officer tried to run him over while he was riding a bicycle.
- During the call, Bryant described officers’ presence near a friend’s house, provided an address, and stated his hands were on his head; the recording also captured him telling officers he had 911 on the line.
- At trial, Bryant did not plan to testify and sought to introduce the 911 recording as an excited utterance.
- The State stipulated to the recording’s authenticity and agreed it qualified as an excited utterance for hearsay purposes, but objected that it was a self-serving statement and Bryant would not be subject to cross-examination.
- The trial court excluded the recording because Bryant would not testify, reasoning it could not be played for the jury without subjecting him to cross-examination.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding the defendant’s 911 call offered as an excited utterance because the defendant would not testify and be subject to cross-examination.
2. Whether a court may treat an otherwise admissible excited utterance as inadmissible solely because it is “self-serving” and offered by the accused.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed Bryant’s convictions for battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer without violence.
- The court held the trial court erred by conditioning admission of the 911 recording on Bryant’s (or another eyewitness’s) testimony.
- The case was remanded for a new trial consistent with the ruling that the 911 call could be admitted if the excited-utterance predicate is satisfied.

## Legal Principles

- Whether an out-of-court statement qualifies as an excited utterance is a trial court admissibility determination; the jury assesses credibility and weight after admission.
- A statement that satisfies the excited-utterance exception is not excluded merely because it is made by the defendant and may be characterized as self-serving.
- A trial court may not impose an additional requirement—such as mandatory declarant testimony or cross-examination availability—that is not part of the hearsay exception once authenticity and the exception’s elements are established.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ruled that an otherwise admissible excited utterance offered by a defendant cannot be excluded on the ground that it is self-serving or because the defendant elects not to testify, and it ordered a new trial after the erroneous exclusion of the 911 recording.


Bryant v. State, 98 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)