## Facts

- Abraham Grant entered an apartment in Helena, Arkansas, and began shooting at the occupants.
- Rosetta Pittman (Grant’s mother-in-law) was shot in the hand, chest, and neck; Louise Perry was shot in the hand.
- Captain David Lovell arrived first, saw a trail of blood, and found Pittman lying in a large puddle of blood near the back door.
- Pittman was upset and crying, had blood coming from her mouth, and drifted in and out of consciousness.
- After Lovell calmed her and asked what happened, Pittman stated: “Abraham Grant shot me, and he ran out the back door.”
- Pittman later died from her injuries.
- At trial for capital murder (Pittman) and first-degree battery (Perry), the court admitted Pittman’s statement over objection as a dying declaration; the jury convicted Grant and imposed life without parole plus a concurrent five-year term.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the victim’s identification statement as a dying declaration under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 804(b)(2) without direct proof the victim expressly believed death was imminent.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement under Rule 804(b)(2).
- The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer the declarant believed death was imminent.
- The court concluded the statement concerned the cause or circumstances of the declarant’s impending death.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ark. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), a dying declaration is admissible if made while the declarant believed death was imminent and it concerns the cause or circumstances of the believed impending death.
- A declarant’s belief that death is imminent may be inferred from circumstances, including the nature and extent of wounds and the declarant’s physical condition and behavior; an express statement of impending death is not required.
- Admission of a dying declaration is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A statement identifying the shooter and describing immediate flight can satisfy the “cause or circumstances” requirement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Grant’s convictions, ruling that the victim’s identification of Grant as the shooter was properly admitted as a dying declaration because the victim’s severe injuries and deteriorating condition permitted an inference of imminent death, and the statement directly addressed the cause and circumstances of the fatal shooting.


Grant v. State, 161 S.W.3d 785 (Ark. 2004)