## Facts

- Richard King, Jr. was charged in federal court with sexually abusing Michael W.
- Michael was 15 years old and had learning disabilities.
- On the day of the alleged assault, Michael spent time drinking with friends.
- Around 5:30 p.m., Michael went home to change clothes.
- After returning to his friends, Michael said that King had raped him while he was at home.
- Michael kept drinking and later passed out.
- After 11:30 p.m., Michael’s mother found him unconscious and drove him home.
- Once home, Michael told his mother that King had raped him.
- King moved in limine to exclude Michael’s statement to his mother as hearsay.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling the statement was admissible as an excited utterance under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2).
- Several witnesses testified that Michael appeared shaken for hours after the incident.
- King was convicted, and he appealed, challenging the admission of the mother’s testimony about Michael’s statement.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Michael’s statement to his mother—made hours after the alleged rape—as an excited utterance under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2).
2. Whether Michael’s continued drinking and later loss of consciousness required exclusion because those events showed he was no longer under the stress caused by the alleged assault when he spoke to his mother.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement to his mother as an excited utterance under Rule 803(2).

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2), an “excited utterance” is a statement that (1) relates to a startling event and (2) is made while the declarant remains under stress caused by that event.
- The passage of time between the event and the statement matters, but there is no fixed time limit; the question is whether the declarant was still reacting to the event rather than speaking after calm reflection.
- Courts may consider the declarant’s behavior and condition (including visible distress), the nature of the event, and characteristics such as youth or cognitive limitations when deciding whether stress continued.
- Intervening events such as alcohol use or sleep/unconsciousness are part of the overall evaluation and may affect how the trial court views continued stress, but they do not automatically bar Rule 803(2) treatment.
- Appellate review of a Rule 803(2) ruling is for abuse of discretion, and the trial court’s fact-based assessment receives substantial deference.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in finding that Michael’s statement to his mother was made while he remained under the stress of the alleged rape, even though several hours had passed and Michael had been drinking and later passed out, because the record included testimony that he stayed shaken for an extended period and the court could account for his age and learning disabilities in judging whether the stress persisted.


United States v. King, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18108, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 4501 (2000)