## Facts

- Vincent Clark was prosecuted for the shooting death of Jamai White at the Brandywine Apartments in Wilmington, Delaware.
- Molly Hoffman allegedly witnessed Clark shoot White and then flee the scene.
- Shortly after the shooting, Hoffman told her sister, Michelle, what she had seen while Hoffman was still upset from the event.
- Hoffman and Michelle agreed that Hoffman should tell police what she knew.
- Hoffman flagged down Officer Herrera, who agreed to drive her to the police station to provide a statement.
- During the ride, Officer Herrera activated a recording device, and Hoffman described the shooting while still shaken.
- After arriving at the station, Hoffman gave a later recorded statement in a more formal interview setting with police.
- Before trial, Hoffman died and was unavailable to testify.
- The State filed a pretrial motion to admit Hoffman’s statements to (1) Michelle, (2) Officer Herrera in the patrol car, and (3) police at the station.
- Clark objected that the statements were inadmissible hearsay and that admitting them would violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because Hoffman could not be cross-examined.

## Issues

1. Whether Hoffman’s statements were admissible under Delaware hearsay exceptions, including the excited utterance exception.
2. Whether each statement was “testimonial” so that admitting it would violate the Confrontation Clause absent a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

## Decision

- The court granted the State’s motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court admitted Hoffman’s statement to her sister as an excited utterance and found it non-testimonial.
- The court admitted Hoffman’s recorded statements to Officer Herrera during the patrol-car ride as non-testimonial excited utterances.
- The court excluded Hoffman’s later recorded police-station interview as testimonial under the Confrontation Clause.

## Legal Principles

- Hearsay is inadmissible unless it fits a recognized exception under the Delaware Rules of Evidence.
- Under Del. R. Evid. 803(2), an excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event made while the declarant is still under the stress caused by the event.
- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements offered for their truth when the declarant is unavailable and the accused had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
- A statement is testimonial when, viewed objectively, its primary purpose is to establish or prove past events for possible later use in a criminal case rather than to respond to an ongoing situation.
- Statements to private parties (such as family members) made in the immediate aftermath of a violent event are generally non-testimonial, though they must still satisfy the rules of evidence.
- Statements to law enforcement can be non-testimonial when made close in time to the event and in circumstances aimed at addressing immediate needs (including locating a fleeing suspect), but later structured stationhouse questioning aimed at creating an evidentiary record is generally testimonial.
- Even when a statement fits a hearsay exception, it must be excluded if it is testimonial and the defendant lacks a prior chance to cross-examine the declarant.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court permitted the State to introduce Hoffman’s immediate, stress-driven accounts of the shooting to her sister and during the patrol-car ride with Officer Herrera, but barred the later recorded station interview because it functioned as substitute trial testimony and Clark had no opportunity to cross-examine the now-deceased witness.


State v. Clark, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 82 (2017)