State of Nebraska, Appellee v. Steven Jacob, Appellant (Nebraska 1993)

Summary

The court held that the victim’s statement to her supervisor was admissible as an excited utterance and did not violate the confrontation clauses. It held that the victim’s hospital statements identifying Jacob were not admissible as dying declarations because the record did not establish her belief in impending death, and were not admissible under the residual hearsay exceptions because the State failed to show that she personally perceived her assailant. Because those statements were erroneously admitted, the convictions were reversed and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Holding

Admissibility of the statement to the supervisor under the excited-utterance exception. The statement was admissible as an excited utterance because Jacob’s visit was startling, the statement related directly to that event, and Hopper’s observable agitation showed that she remained under the stress of the event when she spoke.

Confrontation rights and the statement to the supervisor. Admission of Hopper’s statement to her supervisor did not violate the federal or Nebraska confrontation clauses because Hopper was unavailable and the statement fell within the firmly rooted excited-utterance exception, supplying adequate reliability.

Dying-declaration exception for the hospital statements. None of Hopper’s hospital statements qualified as dying declarations because the evidence did not establish that she was conscious of impending death when she made them.

Residual hearsay exceptions and personal knowledge concerning the hospital statements. The hospital statements were inadmissible under the residual hearsay exceptions because the State failed to establish equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, particularly that Hopper had an opportunity to observe and personally perceived Jacob as the shooter.

State of Nebraska, Appellee v. Steven Jacob, Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by