## Facts

- Jimmy Lee Napier was indicted for four counts of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle (18 U.S.C. § 2312) and one count of interstate kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201) arising from an assault and abduction of Mary Gertrude Caruso.
- A separate firearm-possession charge was severed and later dismissed.
- Caruso, a Portland, Oregon resident, was found unconscious near Vancouver, Washington with severe head injuries; a broken rifle was nearby.
- Physical evidence linked Napier to the assault scene and Caruso’s vehicle, including his fingerprints on the rifle barrel and on the car (including the steering wheel), as well as his personal papers found inside the car with Caruso’s purse.
- Caruso suffered serious brain injuries, was hospitalized for weeks, underwent two brain operations, and was deemed unable to understand an oath and therefore incompetent to testify at trial; her communication was limited to isolated words and simple phrases.
- About a week after she returned home, Caruso’s sister showed her a newspaper containing Napier’s photograph; Caruso became visibly distressed, pointed to the photograph, and made an accusatory statement identifying Napier.
- Over objection, the district court admitted the sister’s testimony recounting Caruso’s statement under the excited-utterance (spontaneous exclamation) hearsay exception.
- Napier argued, among other defenses, intoxication/insanity and lack of proof of interstate transportation; the jury convicted him on all counts tried.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting Caruso’s out-of-court identification of Napier, made upon seeing his photograph weeks after the assault, as an excited utterance.
2. Whether, for federal kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201, the government must prove the defendant knew he was crossing a state line, making the jury instruction dispensing with that requirement erroneous.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the challenged statement was properly admitted as an excited utterance and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
- The court held knowledge of crossing state lines is not an element of kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201; the interstate movement requirement functions as a jurisdictional fact.

## Legal Principles

- A hearsay statement may qualify as an excited utterance even when the triggering “startling event” is a later stimulus (e.g., viewing a suspect’s photograph) that produces an immediate, stress-driven reaction related to an earlier crime.
- In assessing excited-utterance admissibility, courts focus on whether the statement was made under stress rather than reflective thought, considering the declarant’s physical and mental condition and the circumstances of the utterance; the determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- For kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201, the government must prove interstate transportation occurred, but it need not prove the defendant knew or intended that a state line was crossed.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission of an identification statement as an excited utterance where a later stimulus triggered an immediate reaction from a severely injured declarant, and it confirmed that federal kidnapping does not require proof that the defendant knew of the interstate boundary crossing.


United States v. Napier, 518 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1975)