## Facts

- Anthony Calm, age 17, was confronted near his Wilmington home by three men wearing black-and-white checkered scarves and pointing guns, who took his phone, key, school ID, and cash.
- After two men left, the third robber took Calm’s clothing and directed him to sit; Calm ran home once the robber left.
- Calm banged on his locked door for about two minutes until admitted by his sister and told his sister and mother he had been robbed; his mother, Kimberly Wallace, described him as scared, hysterical, and crying.
- Wallace immediately searched for the perpetrators and quickly encountered a police detective and officer, frantically reporting the robbery while the officers followed her.
- Wallace identified a man on the street as one of the robbers; when police commanded him to stop, he fled but was apprehended at gunpoint and identified as Jamour Pressey, who was wearing a black-and-white checkered scarf.
- Police recovered Calm’s phone, school ID, and house key from Pressey; dialing Calm’s number caused the recovered phone to ring.
- Wallace brought Calm to the arrest scene; Calm appeared visibly distressed (crying, shaking, slouching, reluctant to exit the car) and identified Pressey as one of the robbers.
- At trial, Wallace and an arresting officer testified about Calm’s out-of-court identification; over objection, the trial court admitted the identification as an excited utterance.
- A jury convicted Pressey of first-degree robbery and resisting arrest.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony about Calm’s out-of-court identification of Pressey under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (D.R.E. 803(2)).

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in finding Calm’s on-scene identification was made while he remained under the stress of the robbery.
- The court concluded the short time span from the robbery to the identification and Calm’s ongoing distress supported admission under D.R.E. 803(2).

## Legal Principles

- Under D.R.E. 803(2), a statement is admissible if it relates to a startling event and is made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement caused by that event.
- Whether a declarant remained under the stress of the event is a fact-driven determination committed largely to the trial court.
- On appeal, admission of evidence under a hearsay exception is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and an appellate court will affirm if the ruling is within the bounds of reason.
- An on-scene identification made shortly after a violent crime may qualify as an excited utterance when the declarant remains visibly distressed and the events occur in rapid sequence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Pressey’s convictions, ruling that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the victim’s near-immediate on-scene identification as an excited utterance because the identification closely related to the robbery and was made while the victim remained under the robbery’s stress.


Pressey v. State, 25 A.3d 756 (Del. 2011)