Ronnie Keith Williams v. State of Florida
SC04-857
OUR NEXT CASE IS
WILLIAMS VERSUS STATE OF
FLORIDA.
>>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS JEFFREY ANDERSON.
I REPRESENT THE APPELLANT,
RONNIE WILLIAMS.
I HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS
ISSUE NUMBER 1 AND ISSUE
NUMBER 4 FIRST, THEN, IF
THERE IS ANY TIME REMAINING,
I WILL TRY TO GET IN ISSUES.
THE FIRST ISSUEED INVOLVED,
I WANT TO FOCUS ON HER
STATEMENTS MADE FROM 911
OPERATOR AND THE OFFICER
ARRIVING AT THE SCENE.
I WANT TO CLARIFY --
>> THE ISSUES YOU ARE
PRESENTING ARE NOT CRAWFORD
ISSUES?
THEY ARE HEARSAY ISSUES?
WILE NOT ADDRESS THE
CRAWFORD ISSUE HERE TODAY
BASE DON'T THINK I HAVE
TIME.
I AM ADDRESSING THE HEARSAY
ISSUE TODAY.
I HAVE RAISED THE CRAWFORD
ISSUE.
> WAS THAT RAISED BELOW?
>> IT WAS RAISED THROUGH A
HEARSAY OBJECTION.
POLICE SAY, HER SAY.
BUT I WOULD POINT OUT
EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THE
CONFRONTATION ASPECT AND THE
JUDGE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK
AT 1378 OF THE RECORD, 1383,
1391, HE SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESSING CONFRONTATION
CONCERNS.
THE STATE CITED A GOOD CASE
FOR THEM, UNDER THAT, IT
WOULD NOT BE PRESERVED.
THE JUDGE DID UNDERSTAND
SOME OF THE CONFRONTATION
PROBLEMS.
AND THE JUDGE ADMITTED THE
STATEMENTS, WILL CALL THEM
THE NON-HOSPITAL STATEMENTS.
OUR COMPLAINT IS THAT PROPER
PREDICATE WASN'T MADE BY THE
STATE IN THAT THERE WAS
TELEPHONE CALL FROM LISA
DYKE TO HER BOYFRIEND MADE
BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE
ATTACK AND THE TIME OF THE
STATEMENTS THAT ARE BEING
ADMITTED.
>> FOR THE POLICE GOT THERE
ORIGINALLY?
>> RIGHT.
>> BEFORE SHE MADE THINK 911
CALL.
SHE HAD CALLED HER
BOYFRIEND.
THE PROSECUTOR, HE CALLED TO
THE BOYFRIEND IN THE 911 --
WELL, THE 911 CALL WAS RIGHT
ON THE HEELS OF THE CALL TO
THE BOYFRIEND.
SHE STILL HAD 19 STAB WOUNDS
THAT WERE NOT BEING
MEDICALLY ADDRESSED AT THE
TIME SHE MADE THE CALL?
>> SHE HAD 7 STAB WOUNDS AN
A WARRANT -- YOU MEAP TO THE
BOYFRIEND?
>> NO, TO THE 911 CALL?
>> RIGHT.
>> SHE HAD SEVERAL STAB
WOUNDS THAT REQUIRED
IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION.
>> SHE HAD STAB WOUNDS,
THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT
THAT.
>> WHETHER SHE KNEW IT OR
MOT.
SHE WAS SLOWLY DYING FROM.
YOU GR GOING INTO THE DYING
DECORATION.
>> AM GOING INTO YOUR
ARGUMENT OF WHETHER THE 911
CASS WAS SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE
HAPPENED TO MAKE A CALL TO
THE BOYFRIENDS BEFORE THE
CALL.
>> IT IS NECESSARY PREDICATE.
THAT IS WHAT I AM ARGUING TO
THE --
>> SHE CALLED THE 911
OPERATOR.
TO GET MEDICAL HELP.
>> CORRECT.
>> I WON'T ARGUE THAT.
>> YOU ARE ACTUALLY, AGAIN,
I GUESS, HOW IS THAT NOT THE
CONVERSATION SHE HAD IN
EXCITED UTTERANCE?
>> BECAUSE YOU HAVE, YOU
HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT
-- YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT
HAPPENS IN THAT HALF HOUR
BEFORE SHE MAKES THE CALL
BECAUSE I HAVE CITED THE
PROPOSITION THAT YOU CAN'T
BE IN A BRAIN WHERE YOU ARE
DOING REFLECTIVE THOUGHT AND
THEN LATER BECOME EXCITED
FOR IT TO BE AN EXCITED
UTTERANCE.
THE EVENT HERE THAT CAUSES
THE EXCITEMENT IS THE
STABBING, IS THE ATTACK,
WHAT WE ARE SEEING
IN-BETWEEN, THERE IS A LOT
OF REFLECTION GOING ON AND
THERE IS THINGS WE DON'T
KNOW ABOUT MAINLY THAT CALL
TO HER BOYFRIEND.
>> GOY'S HAD.
>> ARE YOU SAYING HE WAS IN
REFLECTIVE THOUGHT BECAUSE
SHE CALLED HER BOY DPREND?
>> IT MAY HAVE INFLUENCED
HER.
>> WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR
REFLECTIVE THOUGHT BETWEEN
THE STABBING AND THE 911
CALL?
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN SHE,
AFTER THE PERPETRATOR LEFT,
SHE MOVED IN THE APARTMENT
AND LOCKED THE DOOR.
THAT WAS REFLECTIVE THOUGHT,
IT WAS GOOD REFLECTIVE
THOUGHT.
WHICH AS GOOD DECISION.
BUT IT IS EVIDENCE OF
REFLECTIVE THOUGHT.
THERE WAS ALSO THE THOUGHT
SHE TOOK A SHOWER.
THERE IS AN OFFICER WHO
TESTIFIED SHE LOOKED AS IF
SHE HAD TAKEN A SHOWER.
>> SO MR. ANDERSON, THE
TRIAL JUDGE HEARD ALL OF
THAT AND MADE DECISION THAT
IT WAS --
>> THE JUDGE DID NOT HEAR
THE PHONE CALL TO THE
BOYFRIEND.
THE STATE STARTED TO
INTRODUCE THAT INTO
EVIDENCE.
EYE GUESS, WHATEVER THAT WAS
SPRENED WHICH WAS SPRENED
EITHER BY THE STATE OR BY
THE DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE
DECIDED, LISTEN FACTLY, HE
MAKE AS FACTUAL
DETERMINATION, CORRECT?
>> HE MADE A LEGAL RULING.
>> WELL, THIS HE LEGAL
CONCLUSION IS BASED ON WHAT
THE FACTS AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF EVERY CASE
IS, IF THAT IS THE CASE,
ISN'T OUR STANDARD REVIEW OF
THAT DECISION 1:00 THAT IS
WHETHER OR NOT IF IS EXCITED
UTTERANCE ENTITLED TO THE
DIFFERENCE THAT THE TRIAL
JUDGE MADE A FACTUAL FINDING
ON, YOU KNOW, THE HALF HOUR
OF HER CONDITION, THE ACTUAL
CALL ITSELF, WHAT HER VOICE
SOUNDED LIKE TO COME UP WITH
THAT DECISION?
>> WELL, I GIVE DIFFERENCE
TO HIS HISTORICAL FACT
FINDINGS BUT HE DIDN'T
RECOGNIZE THE LEGAL PROBLEM
IN THAT THERE IS A HALF
HOURS LAPSE.
YOU HAVE TO BE ABSENT OF ALL
REFLECTION DURING THAT TIME
PERIOD.
I THINK HIS WAS MORE OF A
REACTION THAT SHE WAS IN
EXCITED STATE DURING THE
TAPE BUT HE DIDN'T LOOK AT I
THINK THE PHONE CALL IS KEY
TO THIS WHAT HAPPENED DURING
THAT PHONE CALL.
>> YOU SAY THAT IS NOT IN
THE RECORD.
THE PHONE CALL TO THE
BOYFRIEND?
WE HAVE IT IN THE RECORD
THAT IT OCCURRED ON THE
STATE STARTED TO INTRODUCE
IT AND THE JUDGE SAID, WAIT,
I KNOW I RULED IN THE PAST
THAT THIS WAS ALSO, BUT I
THINK IS SOME PROBLEMS HERE.
HIS INDICATION IS THAT HE
HAD NEVER HEARD WHAT THE
CONTENT OF THAT PHONE CALL
WAS.
IF TWO WITNESSES TO THAT
PHONE CALL, STEPHANIE
LAWRENCE AND SHE STARTED TO
TESTIFY TO THE PHONE CALL
OCCURRING, AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THE BOYFRIEND,
JULIUS, HE DID NOT LAYOUT
HIS CONVERSATION WITH LISA
DYKE.
OUR POSITION IS THAT --
WELL, HE STARTED.
WAS HE CONCLUDED IN
CONTINUING ON FINDING OUT
THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
CONTENT OF THE CONVERSATION?
>> NOT SPECIFICALLY.
THIS WAS -- THEY WERE TRYING
-- OUR POINT IS THE STATE
HAS TO WAY THE PREDICATE
THAT NO REFLECTION OCCURRED
DURING THAT HALF HOUR.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN A CASE
LIKE THIS WHERE THERE IS A
TELEPHONE IN-BETWEEN THE
TIME OF THE EVENT AND THE
STATEMENT THAT IS OMITED?
>> ISN'T THAT AN
OVERSTATEMENT OF THE LAW,
THAT IS THE STATE HAS AN
OBLIGATION TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT THERE IS NO REFLECTION,
THAT IS -- THE REFLECTION IS
SORT OF THE NORMAL?
>> THAT IS IN GENERAL.
>> I AM CONCERNED, TOO,
ABOUT THE HEAVY FACTUAL
NATURE OF THIS, THAT IS
CLEARLY, WE CAN IMAGINE
ANOTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, YOU
KNOW, IN TALKING ABOUT HIGH
POE THET CALLS, WHERE YOU
KNOW, THE INJURIES LESS,
SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, NOW
BEING PROSECUTED FOR AN
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT WHERE
THEIR HAND WAS STABBED OR
SOMETHING.
AND, YOU KNOW, THEY PUT
MEDICINE ON THE HAND AND DID
EVERYTHING THAT THEY COULD
AND TOOK A SHOWER OR
WHATEVER KIND OF A THING,
BUT THEN, THEY ENDED UP
CONCLUDED THAT THEY NEEDED
TO CALL 911, YOU KNOW?
THE INJURY WAS NOT LIFE
LATEENING OR WHATEVER, SO
THEY CALLED 911 6:00 AND
UNDER THE SORT OF THE SAME
CIRCUMSTANCES AND IT SEEMS
LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE A HARD
TIME, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW,
AFTER THAT DELAY OF TIME AND
ALL, THAT THAT WOULD BE
ANOTHER CASE, BUT THIS IS
HEAVILY FACTUALLY LADEN AND
HOW DO WE GET AROUND THE
TRIAL COURT IN CONSIDERING
ALL OF THE THINGS THE TRIAL
COURT DID CONSIDER AS FAR AS
CONCLUDING THAT THIS IS A
PERSON WHO IS DYING AND HAS
INJURY AN IS REALLY CALLING
OUT FOR HELP.
>> WELL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE IS A DISFINTION
BETWEEN THE EXCITED
UTTERANCE AND THE DYING
DECORATION?
>> WELL, I AM COMPLETELY
ELIMINATING WHEN I SAID WAS
DYING, IT IS A HINDSIGHT.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
>> THE THING THAT NOW MAKES
THIS CASE A LOT DIFFERENT
AND YOU CAN'T TOTALLY, YOU
CAN'T RELY ON HIS TOTALLY
RELYING, GIVE FINDINGS THIS
IS PHONE CALL.
IT IS IMPERATIVE TO THE
DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THIS
WAS AN, SITE --
>> LET ME ASK YOU A
QUESTION.
WHO BORE THE BURDEN OF
ESTABLISHING THERE WAS TIME
FOR REFLECTIVE THOUGHT?
OR WAS NOT?
>> I DON'T MOW.
>> IF THERE WAS TIME TO
REFLECT, THE PROPONENT FOR
THE ADMISSION WAS ESTABLISH?
RIGHT.
EYE GUESS OUR QUESTION IS
WHAT I ASK.
WHO HAS THE INITIAL
OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE
FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
REFERRING TO IN HERE THAT
THERE WAS TIME FOR
REFLECTIVE THOUGHT BECAUSE
IF SHE WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED
WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THAT
AFTER THE PHONE CALL THE
RECIPIENT OF THE PHONE CALL
JULIUS WAS ANGRY AND
SCREAMING THAT RONNIE HAD
STABBED DYKE.
>> RIGHT.
>> CORRECT.
>> RIGHT.
>> WELL, THE BURDEN I
HAVEN'T SEEN THAT BURDEN
SPECIFICALLY IN ANY CASE,
BUT I WOULD SAY, EVEN IF IT
IS OUR BURDEN MET IN THIS
CASE BECAUSE OF THE TIME OF
20 TO 30 MINUTES, THIS CASE
LAW HAS BEEN ESTABLISHING
THAT IS ENOUGH TIME FOR
REFLECTIVE THOUGHTS.
ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE
WHERE SHE IS NO CERTAIN
ACTION SHE HAS TAKEN DURING
THAT TIME PERIOD LIKE MOVING
ABOUT AN LOCKING THE DOOR
AND TAKING A SHOWER, I MEAN,
TIME POR REFLECTIVE THOUGHT
AP THE PHONE CALL ITSELF IS,
I THINK MAKING A PHONE CALL
TO THE BOY FRND IN SOME
EVIDENCE OF THAT.
BUT MY MAIN COME PLOO
PLAINTS THE JUDGE REALLY
DIDN'T GET THE MEAT OF THAT
PHONE CALL AND HE HAD THE
STATE COULD HAVE PRESENED
JULIUS LAWRENCE COULD HAVE
GONE INTO MORE WITH
STEPHANIE LAWRENCE,
STEPHANIE LAWRENCE DIDN'T
TESTIFY THAT SHE PICKED UP
THE PHONE.
LISA DYKE ASKED FOR HER
BROTHER, SHE DIND IT CAID
ANYTHINGS WITH OUT OF THE
MEMORIAL.
IT SEEMED LIKE SHE WOULD
VOLUNTEER THAT.
GAIN, THEY DIDN'T GET INTO
IT.
THAT IS THE BIG PROBLEM
HERE.
THERE IS A SECOND ASPECT OF
THE PHONE CALL TO THE
BROTHER IN THAT DURING THE
911 CALL, SHE BASICALLY
TAUGHT ARE TALKED ABOUT NOT
BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE PHONE
CALL PREVIOUSLY WHEN THE 911
OPERATOR ASKED WHAT TOOK YOU
SO LONG TO CALL US?
SHE SEEMS FO BE DENYING
BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE PHONE
CALL AND WE KNOW SHE JUST
MADE A PHONE CALL TO JULIUS
LAWRENCE.
I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT
AS PECK OF THIS, TOO.
AND I GUESS I AM --
>> YOU GOT AN ISSUE AS TO
GILLESPIE, IT SEEMS LUKE YOU
MAY HAVE A STRONG ARGUMENT.
IS IT THE SAME ARGUMENT WITH
GILLESPIE OR IS IT THE SAME
WITH ADDITIONAL TIME?
THERE WERE ACTUAL RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING
ASKED BY GILL LESS? I
>> THAT IS TRUE.
IT WAS VERY CLOSE IN TIME.
HE BASICALLY, THERE IS
KNOCKING AT THE END OF THE
911 TAPE WHICH IS GILLESPIE.
>> WHAT WAS THE SDMN WHAT
WAS HER CONDITION?
WHAT WAS HER CONDITION
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD WITH
GILLESPIE ARRIVED?
>> HE MAINLY TALKS ABOUT HER
BEING IN FEAR OF DEATH
SAYING -- HE DEFINES THAT AS
SAYING I DON'T WANT TO DIE,
AND HE NOTICES --
>> SHE WAS NUDE, CORRECT?
RIGHT.
>> SHE WAS WET?
>> SHE WAS WET, TOO.
HE TESTIFIED AND SAID SHE
HAD TAKEN A SHOWER.
SHE WAS BLEEDING.
>> SHE WAS BLEEDING.
>> WAS SHE -- SHE SHE APPEAR
TO BE IN A STATE OF SHOCK?
TO GILLESPIE AT THE
TESTIMONY?
>> LATER ON, SHE TALKED
ABOUT HER GOING IN AND OUT
OF CONSCIOUSNESS.
>> RIGHT.
>> CAN WE CONCLUDE THAT HER
SITUATION WAS DETERIORATING
AND TOWARD THE END OF THIS
30 UNNUTS HER SITUATION
DURING THE TIME SHE WAS
MAKING THE 911 CALL WAS MORE
OF EMERGING SITUATION THAN
IT HAD BEEN EARLIER?
>> THE CASE LAW IS PRETTY
CLEAR THAT THIS STATE OF
EXCITEMENT HAS TOEN
CONTINUOUS AND THAT IF YOU
CAN'T BE REVIVAL OF EXCITED
YOU ATERANCE.
THE PROBLEM WITH CASES, AND,
YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE HEAR A
LOT OF CASES WHERE INTERIS
GOING OCCURS, AN HOUR OR TWO
LATER, BUT HERE YOU HAVE AS
WE HAVE BEEN SORT OF
EMPHASIZING THIS PROFOUNDLY
DISABLING PHYSICAL INJURY
AND THAT EIF HE EFFECT
VISIBLE EFFECT ON HER
CONSCIOUS THOUGHT AN SO THAT
IS WHY THESE CASES ARE
FACTUALLY DISTINCT AND GO
BACK TO WHERE IT SEEMS THAT
THE TRIAL JUDGE IS ON THE
POSITION TO THEN MAKE A
DECISION THAT AS LONG AS IT
IS NOT CLEARLY AS A MATTER
OF LAW, WE GOT TO DEFER IT
TO.
I THINK THE CASES -- HERE IS
WHY I THINK THE CASE IS
SAFE.
IT IS NOT A REVIVAL.
YOU CAN'T BE IN REFLECTIVE
THOUGHT AND THEN LATER ON
GET AN EXCITED STATE AND
MAKE THE STATEMENT AND THEY
ARE ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE I HI
THE COURTS HAVE BEEN WORRIED
ABOUT EXAGGERATION OR
FABRICATION OR NOT COMPLETE
TRUTHFULNESS.
>> MAINLY EXAGGERATED.
>> BUT THAT MAY BE TRUE IN A
LAW BOOK, BUT HERE IS A
18-YEAR-OLD THAT HAS BEEN
STABBED MULTIPLE TIMES
BECAUSE SHE IS IN SHOCK
BECAUSE SHE THINKS SHE AT
FIRST IS NOT DYING BUT ALL
OF THE SUDDEN, SHE STARTS
REALIZING THAT SHE IS IN
EXTREME DISTRESS.
SHE CALLED 911, MOMENTS
LATER, GILLESPIE COME, SHE
IS SLIPPING INTO
UNCONSCIOUSNESS, THERE IS
BLOOD EVERYWHERE, SHE HAS
OXYGEN MASKS, SHE THINKS SHE
IS DIING.
THAT IS FACTUAL.
YOU SHOW ME ANOTHER CASE
THAT HAS THAT TYPE OF FACS,
THEN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT
THAT PRINCIPAL IS THAT SHE
MIGHT NOW BE NOT TELLING THE
TRUTH OR SOMETHING AND NO
LONGER EXCITED EVIDENCE.
>> I AM NOT SAYING SHE IS
TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT
BEING ATTACKED AND THINGS
LIKE THAT.
THE FACTS SHOW THAT, BUT IT
IS THIS RAPE ALLEGATION A
COMES OUT OF NOWHERE, THAT
IS WHAT I WAS FOCUSING ON
IT.
THE CALL TO THE BOYFRIEND
JUST HAVE TO KNOW WHAT IS
GOING ON TO ENSURE THAT SOME
SUGGESTION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
TO HER TO ENSURE THAT NONE
OF THIS IS GOING ON.
>> I AM NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND YOUR STATEMENT
COMES OUT OF NOWHERE.
THAT IS NOT PART OF THE
DISCUSSION THAT WAS HELD
WITH OFFICER GILLESPIE AS TO
WHAT HAPPENED?
>> NO, A VOLUNTEER TYPE OF
STATEMENT.
>> IT WAS NOT DURING HER
DISCUSSION WITH HIM AT ALL.
>> IT IS DURING THE
DISCUSSION WITH HIM.
IT COMES UP FIRST IN THE 911
TAPE, THEN DURING THE
DISCUSSION WITH HIM.
IT IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO
WHAT HAPPENED.
SHE JUST -- IT COMES OUT OF
HER.
THAT IS THE WAIT COMES OUT
ON THE TAPE, TOO.
IT IS NOT RESPONSE TO A
QUESTION.
>> ISN'T THAT MORE EVIDENCE
THAT IS UTTERANCE?
>> IT DEFENDS.
>> IF IT WERE RESPONSE TO'S
Q YOU WOULD BE ARGUING
BECAUSE THERE IS
INTERROGATION GOING ON.
>> IT DPEENLS ON WHAT SHE IS
THINKING.
I THINK THAT IS JU TO HAVE A
CONTINUOUS STATE OF
EXCITEMENT AND THERE IS ONE
EXCEPTION WHERE THERE IS A
LONG PERIOD AND THAT IS
WHERE THE VICTIM US
ATTACKING AND THEN IS
CONTINUOUSLY UNCONSCIOUS AN
WAKES UP FROM COMA OR
SOMETHING AND SAYS SOMETHING
AND THEY SAY, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS NO -- EVEN THOUGH A
LOT OF TIME WENT BY, THERE
IS NOT TIME FOR REFLECTIVE
THOUGHT.
>> AGAIN, WHEN SOMEBODY HAS
BEEN STABBED 7 TIMES
ALLEGEDLY RAPED, BLEEDING,
ISN'T IT LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE
THAT UNTIL THAT PERSON GETS
MEDICAL ATTENTION SHE IS IN
A CONSTANT STATE OF
EXCITEDNESS.
>> SHE IS CALLING HER
BOYFRIEND.
I WOULD CAN CALL 911 FIRST.
>> IT DOESN'T MEAN SHE IS
NOT EXCITED.
SHEEN WITH AS TO TELL HER
BOYFRIEND SHE HAS BEEN RAPED
AND STAB.
IT DOESN'T MEAN SHE IS
EXCITED EITHER.
THE STATE DIDN'T LAY THAT
OUT.
THEY DIDN'T WERE DUES THE
CONTENT OR DEMEANOR DURING
THAT PHONE CALL.
>> HOW ABOUT THE OTHER
STATEMENTS?
THE HOSPITAL WITH REGARD TO
WHAT OCCURRED THERE.
>> WELL THE HOSPITAL
STATEMENTS AND I HAVE TO
ADMIT THAT THEY DON'T
INVOLVE THE RAPE ALLEGATION
AT ALL.
I STILL -- THE TRIAL COURT
FOUND THOSE TO BE BOTH DYING
DECK RIGS AN EXCITED
UTTERANCE WHICH THAT SEEMS
TO BE CONTRARY POSITIONS
BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH STATE
OF MIND EXCEPTIONS AND THEY
REQUIRE DIFFERENT STATES OF
MIND.
>> CASE LAW THAT SAYS YOU A
NOT MAKE EXCITED UTTERANCE
THAT ALSO QUALIFIES AS DYING
DECORATION?
>> NO.
THERE SHOULD BE.
>> THERE SHOULD BE.
>> THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING.
IT CAN'T HAVE REFLECTION
GOING ON.
THE DYING DECORATION, IT
SEEMS LIKE THAT IS PART OF
REFLECTION ABOUT THE
CERTAINTY OF DEATH.
AND I DO AGREE THAT THE
SITUATION AT THE HOSPITAL IS
A LOT DIFFERENT THAN THE
OTHER SITUATION AND INVOLVES
THE STATE HAS A STRONGER
CASE THROUGH IDENTITY NOT
UNCHANGED CASE, BUT A
STRONGER CASE, BUT, YOU
KNOW, IF THE STATEMENTS AT
THE HOSPITAL FOR DEALING
WITH EXCITED UTTERANCE, IF
THE OTHER STATEMENTS WERE
NOT, THE PREDICATE WAS NOT
LAID, THEN THE LATER
STATEMENTS AT THE HOSPITAL
CAN'T QUALIFY.
>> HOW THE STATEMENTS WHEN
SHE IS SPEAKING WITH SOMEONE
THAT I DON'T WANT TO DIE, I
DON'T WANT TO DIE, THAT IS
NOT SPEAKING FROM A FEAR OF
DEATH?
IS THAT YOUR CONCLUSION?
>> NO, I AGREE, IT IS
SPEAKING FROM A FEAR OF
DEATH.
YOU THINK THE LAW REQUIRES
MORE HISTORICALLY AND NOW.
YOU REQUIRE A BELIEVE THAT
DEATH IS CERTAIN AND THE
COURTS USED TO EXPRESS THAT
AS AN ABSENCE OF ANY HOPE OF
RECOVERY, BUT EVEN THE
PRESENT CASE BY-RY AND SOME
CASES TALKED ABOUT CERTAINTY
NOT A PROBABLY.
>> EVEN IF THOSE, EVEN IF
THOSE STATEMENTS ARE NOT,
ONE IN THE HOSPITAL, IT IS
NOT A DYING DECLARATION, IT
IS NOT EXCITED UTTERANCE,
WHAT DO WE VIN THOSE
STATEMENTS THAT WE DON'T
HAVE BE THE OTHERS?
IF WE FOUNDED THE OTHER
STATEMENTS THE 911 CALL, THE
DISCUSSION WITH GILLESPIE
AFTER THE 911 CALL ARE IN
FACT EXCITED UTTERANCES WHAT
DO WE GET OUT OF THE THIRD
ONE THAT WE DON'T ALREADY
HAVE OUT OF THOSE?
>> YOU HAVE IF THERE IS
DOUBTS AS TO THE JURY AS FAR
AS IDENTITY, LIKE I SAY, I
WAS AN UNCHANGED CHAL LEGGED
CASE.
THOSE STATEMENTS COULD
CONTRIBUTE TO THINK VERDICT.
YOU KNOW, I ADMIT.
>> BUT SHE ALREADY SAID IN
THE 911 TAPE AND TO
GILLESPIE WHEN HE CAME TO
HER APARTMENT, THAT THIS GUY
NAMED RODNEY, CORRECT?
THE SAME THING --
>> WELL, THE HOSPITAL
STATEMENT, THERE IS A
LINE-UP A LINE-UP AND SHE
PACIFICALLY CHOOSES RONNIE
WILLIAMS AND THAT IS A LOT
MORE SOLID EVIDENCE AS TO
IDENTITY.
THE JURY HAS ANY PROBLEMS IN
THAT WHEN PEOPLE SAYING
RONNIE OR RODNEY OR
IDENTIFICATION IN THAT WAY,
THEN IT COULD CONRUB BUTTE
TO THE VERDICT.
COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE
VERDICT UNLESS THERE ARE ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS --
>> BESIDES THE THREE HEARSAY
STATEMENTS WHAT OTHER
EVIDENCE WAS THERE THAT THE
EFFICIENT DEFENDANT
COMMITTED THE CRIME?
WERE THEIR FINGER FRIN OR
ANY OF THE CLOTHING AT THE
SCENE?
THAT KIN OF A THING?
THEY HAVE DNA EVIDENCE WHICH
THE WAY IT WAS CHALLENGED
WAS BASICALLY THEY GOT THE
LAB PEOPLE TO ADMIT AROUND
THAT TIME IN OTHER CASE,
THEY WERE MAKING MISTAKE,
BUT NOT IN THIS CASE, AND --
>> THERE WAS FINGERPRINT AT
THE SCENE, BUT THAT WAS
CHALLENGED.
THERE WAS A DEFENSE TO THAT,
TOO.
BEING IT COULDN'T BE
IDENTIFIED DATEWISE.
I ADMIT THERE WAS STRONGER
EVIDENCE AS TO EYE DN DY
THAN I THINK THE KEY ISSUE
WAS THIS FIRST-CAN HE DEGREE
MURDER OR SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER.
>> WAS DNA FOUND ON HIM?
>> THERE WAS MINUTE DNA
FOUND ON ONE OF HER PIECES
OF CLOTHING.
I THINK.
>> BITE MARKS?
>> BITE MARK IDENTIFICATION?
>> YEAH.
>> KIT CHALLENGED.
>> BITE MARK IDENTIFICATION.
>> WAS THERE SEMEN FOUND?
>> NO.
>> YOUR STRONGER ISSUE WOULD
BE IF THE EXCITED UTTERANCES
WE FIND THEY ARE NOT EXCITED
UTTERANCE, THE STATEMENTS
REGARDING THE RAPE, SHE
REALLY -- THERE IS NOT
EVIDENCE OF RAPE OTHER THAN
THE BITE MARKS IN HER
STATEMENT SHE HAS BEEN
RAPED.
>> CORRECT.
>> I DON'T.
-- LET'S JUST, BUT ON THE
OTHER HAND, THIS JUDGE GAVE
A VERDICT FORM THAT FOUND
BOTH FELONY MURDER AN
PREMEDITATED MURD IR.
>> RIGHT.
>> JURY FOUND BOTH.
> RIGHT.
>> SO IF EVEN WITHOUT HER
STATEMENT, THERE IS EVIDENCE
THIS SUSTAIN A FIRST-DEGREE
MURDER?
>> THERE WAS -- THE KEY TO
THIS THAT IS THE STATEMENT
STATE ARGUED TO THE JURY AT
14281429 THE RECORD VERY
SPECIFICALLY THAT THE RAPE
ALLEGATIONS WERE IMPORTANT
TO THIS CASE
UNPREMEDITATION.
IN THAT THE DECISION TO KILL
IN THIS CASE DIDN'T OCCUR
UNTIL AFTER THE RAPE
OCCURRED.
THE STATE'S THE TLIF CASE
TIDE THE TWO IN, IT IS NOT
GOING TO BE HARMLESS AS TO
THE PREMEDITATION THE TLIF
CASE.
IT IS GOING TO BE HARLFUL
THERE BECAUSE OF THE STATE'S
THIS RY OF THE CASE.
>> IT WOULDN'T ALSO BE A
PART OF THE FINDING AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS IN
FACT PREMEDITATION AND SO I
AM HAVING A PROBLEM WITH THE
CCT FINDING BY THE TRIAL
COURT.
CUE ADDRESS THAT?
>> WELL, OUR COMPLAINT ABOUT
THAT IS THAT THE STATE
THEORY BELOW AND THE JUDGE'S
THEORY OF THE CASE, THEY
BOTH SPECULATE IN DIFFERENT
WAYS.
THE JUDGE PRIMARY PRIMARILY
USED THE VIOLENT FELONY TO
CONCLUDE THIS WAS CTC AND IT
WAS A PRIOR, IT WAS CASE I
ACTUALLY DID THE APPEAL ON,
SECONDARY MURDER CASE WHICH
WAS NOT A PREMIDTATED CASE,
IN FACT, IT SHOWED THAT HE
REACTS WITHOUT THINKING AND
MY ARGUMENT THERE IS HE
IMPROPERLY USED THAT OR IF
HE PROPERLY USED IT, IT
DISPROVES IF YOU ARE SAYING
THAT CIRCUMSTANCE HAPPENED
AGAIN, THAT WAS SECOND-DEGREE
MURDER.
>> BUT THE SEXUAL BATTERY
WOULD GO TO PROPORTIONALITY
AND AGGRAVATEORS IN THOSE
KINDS OF THING, CORRECT MOO
CORRECT.
YOU ARE WELL INTO THE
REBUTTAL.
CERTAINLY IF YOU WANT TO
TOUCH ON MORE ISSUE, PLEASE
DO.
>> JUST BASICALLY, I THINK
ISSUE NUMBER 4 IS VERY
STRONG ISSUE AND INVOLVES
THE PREGNANCY COMING IN AND
BEING DISCUSSED OVER DEFENSE
OBJECTION AND THE STATE'S
POSITION HAS BEEN THAT IT
ISREAL RANT TO SHOW
CONSENSUAL SEX AND THE
PROBLEM IS THAT WAS NEVER
DEFENSE IN THE CASE, IT WAS
NEVER EVEN HINTED AT, IT WAS
AT NO SEX, NO RAPE OCCURRED,
YET THIS CALL IN.
I DON'T HAVE TO SAY HOW
PREJUDICIAL IN A PREGNANT
WOMAN IS --
>> WERE THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS OF
HER AND THE INJURYS?
>> PHOTOGRAPHS, YES.
THERE WERE.
>> I MEAN SHE WAS 7 MONTHS
PREGNANT.
SHE WAS SMALL AN THIN.
>> OBVIOUS LOOK IN THE
PHOTOGRAPHS?
>> I DON'T THINK ANY
PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THE
PREGNANCY.
I DON'T THINK THE
PHOTOGRAPHS IN FACT MAY ARE
BEEN TAKEN AFTER THE C-SECTION.
>> HOW ABOUT THE AGGRAVATED
BATTERY THOUGH WITH THE
VICTIM BEING A PREGNANT
INDIVIDUAL?
WOULD THAT NOT BE SOMETHING
WITH LESSER INCLUDED
OFFENSES THAT WERE PRESENED?
>> THE DEFENCE EXPLAINED
EXPLICIT TO THE TRIAL JUDGE
THAT THE SUPPLEMENT RECORD
THAT HE WOULD NEVER
REQUESTED THAT INSTRUCTION
BUT FOR THE FACT THIS CAME
IN THE PREGNANCY CAME IN
OVER HIS OBJECTION.
A
>> DO YOU WANT TO SAVE TIME?
>> I WILL SAVE TIME.
>> MISS CAMPBELL?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,
LESLIE CAMPBELL WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE.
>> THIS IS TOTALLY ASIDE, IN
THE RECORD AS TO WHETHER
THIS BABY WAS BORN DEAD OR
ALIVE?
>> AS WAS KEPT WERE THE
JURY.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY
MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
THEY DID MENTION A C-SEK.
AS FAR AS HIS ACTUAL HEALTH,
THAT WAS NOT PRESTONTED THE
JURY.
PRESENTED TO THE JURY.
>> WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE CCP
ASPECT RIGHT OFF THE BAT?
SURE.
THE CCP WAS PROVEN.
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME CRIME
MR. WILLIAMS DIN RESPONSE TO
BEING SPURNED BY ANOTHER
GIRLFRIEND, HE DID THIS A
FEW YEARS BEFORE AND EXCUSE
ME, I THINK HE WAS OUT OF
PRISON FOR SIX MONS BEFORE
THIS CRIME.
HE HAD BEEN SEEING A SISTER
AND THE SISTER IN FRONT OF
THE ACTUAL VICTIM, THE OLDER
SISTER.
MR. WILLIAMS CAME BACK TO
THE HOUSE, THERE WERE OTHER
PEOPLE IN THE HOME AND HE
STABBED SEVEN TABLES SEVERAL
TIMES CHEST AND BACK AND
THEN HE --
>> TOOK HER AWAY.
>> LET ME SAY THIS.
SO YOU CAN MAKE ADDRESS THIS
IN YOUR CCP ARGUMENT AS
GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, COLD
CALL YOU A LATED
PREMEDICATED, THE
PREMEDITATED ASPECT OF IT
USUALLY GOES TO MAYBE SOME
PRIOR PLANNING AND THIS
RECORD, I AM MOT SURE IF HE
BROUGHT THE KNIFE TO THE
SCENE AND, YOU KNOW, DID HE
COME OVER AND TALK TO HER
AND TO HAVE HER TALK TO THE
GIRLFRIEND AND SO, HELP ME
WITH THAT.
I THINK IN ORDER TO LOOK AT
THE TWO, YOU LOOK AT THE TWO
CRIMES TOGETHER, YOU WILL
SEE CLEAR SIMILARITIES AND
IT SHOWS, YOU IT SHOWS HIS
MIND SET, YES, HE MAY NOT
HAVE BROUGHT THE KNIFE AND
IT APPEARS THAT THE KNIFE
WAS SOMETHING THAT WAN THE
HOUSE.
HOWEVER, THE BREAKUP WITH
WAS DAY OR SO BEFORE HE
RETURNED TO THAT HOUSE TO
STAB HER AND KILL HER THEN
THIS PARTICULAR RETURN TO
RUTH LAWYER REASONS'S
APARTMENT AND LISA DAIK'S
APARTMENT WAS THE DAY AFTER
THE BREAKUP WITH STEPHANIE,
SO WE HAVE MR. WILLIAM'S
RESPONSE TO BEING SPURNED
BAY GIRLFRIEND TO THEN
CHALLENGE OR ATTACK A LOVED
ONE OF THE PERSON WHO WAS --
THIS WAS NOT INSTRUCTION
GIVEN TO THE JURY.
>> IT WAS NOT.
>> SO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT
THIS 6:00, THE SIMILARITIES
OF THE CRIMES, THE JURY
KNEW, OF COURSE, ABOUT THIS
PRIOR VIOLENT FELONY.
AND HE COMMITTED THAT IN, I
THINK 1985 AND HE WAS OUT,
AS YOU SAID POR JUST SEVERAL
MONTHS, SO TO ME, THAT IS A
VERY WEIGHTY AGGRAVATEOR,
SINCE THE JURY WAS NOT
INSTRUCTED ON IT.
THE JUDGE SAID YOU THAT EVEN
THOUGH HE FOUND IT, THAT IT
DIDN'T, IT WASN'T THE
DETERMINING FACTOR ON THE
DEATH PENALTY, WHY EVEN IF
WE FIND THE CCP AGGRAVATEOR
NOT MET, WELL, I GUESS, JUST
A FRIENDLY QUESTION, WHY
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
>> IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN HIS
IN THE JUDGE'S SENTENCING.
>> JUST PACIFICALLY SAID HE
WOULD HAVE GRANED.
>> HE WOULD HAVE IMPOSED THE
DEATH PENALTY REGARDLESS.
I THINK IT IS DANGEROUS TO
TRY TO SAY A CRIME THAT IS
COMMITTED EIGHT YEARS BEFORE
THAT WERE FOUND GUILTY OF
SECOND DEGREE MURDER MAKES
IT THIS CRIME, I MEAN, IF EN
A THING IT SHOWS THIS IS THE
GUY THAT NOT ONLY PRISON
DIDN'T HELP HIM, BUT THAT
HAS EMOTIONAL ISSUES THAT
GET LEAD TO CONSEQUENCE AN
SO TO ME, I DONE KNOW HOW IT
SHOWS SOMETHING BEING CALLED
AP CUCKOOLATED.
IT SHOWS SOMEBODY WITH A
VERY EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED
BACKGROUNDS AND THE JUDGE
FOUND THOSE STAT TORRES
MITIGATEOR, CORRECT?
>> YES, DID HE.
>> STILL NOT BEING ABLE TO
OUTWEIGH THE VERY SERIOUS
AGGRAVATEORS.
>> NOT TO BEAT THAT DEAD
HORSE, BUT THERE IS REVENGE
ASPECT.
I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE A
REVENGE KILLING, THAT DOES
TAKE THOUGHT AND INTENT AND
SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST --
>> WE REALLY DON'T KNOW,
AGAIN, IF HE CAME OVER, HE
CAME OVER TO TRY TO FIND THE
SISTER, SHE IS THERE.
WE DON'T KNOW IF HE IS
DRESSED OR UNDRESSED WHETHER
THERE WAS A RAPE, WHETHER
THINGS HAPPENED AND HE FINES
THE KNIFE AN WE DON'T REALLY
KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW
CALCULATED IT WAS.
WE KNOW THE JURY FOUND
PREMEDICATION.
>> AS IT HAS BEEN POINTED
OUT.
IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE
JURY.
THE JUDGE DIDN'T RELY UPON
IT.
>> WE ALSO, WE HAVE ANOTHER
ONE THAT IS UNDER CHALLENGE,
THAT WOULD BE DURING THE
COMMISSION OF THE FELONY.
SO THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF THAT
COMES IN ONE OF THE
STATEMENTS CORKS RECT?
I WAS RAPED, IS THAT THE OM
EVIDENCE OF THAT?
>> THAT AND THE BITE MARKS
WHICH WERE TEARING BITE
MARKS TO THE GROIN AREA, TO
THE BREAST, TO THE BACK, TO
THE ARM, SO YOU HAVE --
>> THOSE ARE SUFFICIENT, THE
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS
SUFFICIENT EVEN WITHOUT ANY
STATEMENTS WHETHER
ADMISSIBLE OR NOT?
>> I THINK THE ARGUMENT
COULD BE MADE AND WHAT THE
JURY DECIDE IF BECAUSE THE
STATE WAS NOT ARGUING NOT
ONLY, YOU KNOW, A SEXUAL
BATTERY, BUT AN TEAMED
SEXUAL BATTERY UNDER THE
FELONY MURDER THEORY;
HOWEVER, I JUST WANT TO
CORRECT SOMETHING, IF THERE
IS ANY CONFUSION ON THE
COURT, THERE WAS NO SEMEN
PRODUCED IN EVIDENCE BECAUSE
IT WAS NOT LOOKED FOR.
THERE WAS DETERMINATION THAT
SHE WAS TOO, TOO MUCH OF A
WEAKENED CONDITION NOT TO
GET HER FOR SURGERY
IMMEDIATELY, SO IT IS NOT
THAT THERE WAS AN BE A DEN
OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE WON A
COULDN'T FIND IT THERE IS
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE
ONE DID NOT LOOK.
>> YOU CAN MAKE INFERENCE
THAT YOU DIDN'T LOOK THAT I
WAS THERE?
>> I AM NOT TAKE THIS MAG AT
ALL.
>> WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT
YOU CAN'T, WE CAN'T SAY THAT
IT WAS NO THERE.
>> WE CAN'T MAKE ANY
INFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER.
>> RIGHT.
>> NOBODY LOOK LOOKED?
WOULD YOU HELP ME FACTLY AS
TO WHAT THE RECORD WOULD
SHOW REGARDING THE
GIRLFRIEND AND THE
DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF
WHETHER SHE WAS AT THIS
APARTMENT OR NOT?
YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE, DID HE
GO OVER THERE TO SEE THE
GIRLFRIEND OR GO AFTER THE
VICTIM IN THE CASE?
>> THEY HAD BEEN SOXIZING
SOCIALIZEK JULIUS AND LAWYER
RENS, STEPHANIE AND RONNIE
KEITH WILLIAMS AN RUTH AND
HER BOYFRIEND, ALSO, THE
FOUR, I MEAN, THE COUPLES
HAD BEEN TOGETHER, THEY MORE
OR LESS WOULD HAVE KNOWN
THEIR SCHEDULE, EACH OTHER'S
SCHEDULE, IT WAS RUTH'S
SCHEDULE TO LEAVE ABOUT 7:15
IN THE MORNING BECAUSE SHE
HAD A 7:30 CLASS.
IF, IF MR. WILLIAMS WAS
GOING OVER THERE TO MEET
STEPHANIE, I MEAN, TO
CONFRONT RUTH, HE WOULD HAVE
MISSED HER.
HOWEVER, HE DID CONFRONT
LISA AN THERE IS EVIDENCE IN
THE RECORD THAT LISA WAS
INVOLVED IN THAT FINAL
CONVERSATION, TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION WITH
MR. WILLIAMS WHERE STEPHANIE
BROKE UP WITH MR. WILLIAMS,
SO WHETHER IT IS A REVENGE
KILLING DIRECTED JUST AFTER
AT RUTH AND THEN WE, THEN
THERE WAS A TRANSFER INTENT
OR HE WAS GOING FOR WHOEVER
WAS THERE.
IT WOULD BE THE SAFE
ARGUMENT.
>> THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS
WITH REGARD TO LISA DYKE AND
HER ABILITY TO BE CONSCIOUS
DURING THIS 20-30-MINUTE
PERIOD.
>> WHAT DOES THE RECORD
REFLECT ABOUT THE CALL TO
THE BOYFRIEND?
WAS IS IN THE RECORD ABOUT
THAT CONVERSATION OR WHO
SHOULDN'T VO DUES IT AND WHY
IF IT IS IN THE RECORD?
>> BASICALLY, WE HAVE THREE
TRIALS HERE, YOUR HONOR, WE
HAVE, WE HAVE THE RECORD
FROM THE FIRST TRIAL FOR
SOME INFORMATION, THERE WAS
A SECOND TRIAL WHICH INED IN
A MISTRIAL DUE TO SOME
INFORMATION COME BEFORE THE
JURY AS FAR AS THE FIRST
TRIAL WAS CONCERNED.
THEN, WE HAVE THE THIRD
TRIAL.
SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT
WE HAVE BEEN USING HERE IS
FROM THAT SECOND TRIAL AND
IT IS THE CONTENTION THAT
THE CALL TO THE BOYFRIEND
CAME AT 8:30, AROUND 8:30 IN
THE MORNING.
WE KNOW THE CALL TO THE 911
OPERATEOR CAME AT 8:30 IN
THE MORNING.
WE KNOW THE PARAMED UKS
ARRIVED ABOUT 8:35 IN THE
MORNING.
SO WITH THAT, WITH THAT VERY
NARROW TIME FRAME, WE HAVE
TO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN THE APPROXIMATE 8:00
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN
WILLIAMS AN LISA DYKE AND
THE PHONE CALL.
>> HOW DO WE KNOW THAT
HAPPENED AT 8:00?
>> WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR NEXT
DOOR WHO HAD HEARD A GIRL
SCREAMING AND IT HAPPENED
FOR SHORT SHORT PERIOD OF
TIME.
THE NEIGHBOR DIDN'T CALL 911
IT STOPPED SHE TRIED TO GET
THE MOTHER, THEN, THE
SCREAMING STOPPED SO THE 911
CALL WAS NOT PLACED; HOWEVER,
WE DO HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF
THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WHO
SAID THAT SOMEBODY IN LISA
DYKE'S CONDITION, HE WAS
QUITE SURPRISED THAT SHE WAS
STILL CONSCIOUS AT 20 OR 30
MINUTES, THAT SHE PROBABLY
SHOULD HAVE LOST
CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN MINUTES.
SO STARTINGING WITH THAT, SO
SOMEBODY PROBABLY SHOULD
HAVE LOST CONSCIOUSNESS
WITHIN MINUTES.
IF SHE HAD BEEN TRYING TO
GET TO THE PHONE SO THE
EVIDENCE REALLY BEFORE THIS
COURT IS THAT SHE WAS EITHER
INCAPACITATED TO SUCH A
DEGREE THAT SHE, YOU KNOW,
SHE COULD NOT REACH THE
PHONE, OR SHE WAS
UNCONSCIOUS FOR THAT PERIOD
OF TIME.
>> JUSTICE PARIENTE ASKED
ABOUT THE CALL TO THE
BOYFRIEND, I HAVE NOT HEARD
THAT ANSWER YET.
>> IT IS ALL PART OF IT.
>> PLEASE GET TO THAT PART.
>> SO WE HAVE A CALL AT 8:30
TO THE BOYFRIEND.
WHAT WE VUN THE RECORD, WE
HAVE IN THE RECORD IS THAT
THE POLICE OFFICER TALKED TO
STEPHANIE SHRX HE REPORTED
THIS PHONE CALL.
I BELIEVE IT WAS DURING THE
SECOND TRIAL THAT STEPHANIE
WAS ABOUT TO SAY WHAT HER
BROTHER HAD REPORTED WHICH
WAS THAT
>> LISA HAD TOLD HIM THAT
SHE HAD BEEN STABBED THAT IS
WHERE THE TRIAL COURT HAD A
DIFFICULT TIME ADMITTING
THAT STATEMENT.
>> THAT WAS ATTEMPTED?
>> I AM HAVING TROUBLE.
>> RIGHT.
>> TRANSCRIPT HERE, SO AT
THIS, AT THIS DRIL, THAT WE
HAVE BEFORE BUS, NONE OF
THAT TOOK PLACE?
>> AT THIS TRIAL, WE HAVE IN
THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WE
HAVE STEPHANIE TESTIFYING
THAT THERE WAS A PHONE CALL
MADE AND SHE HAD PASSED THE
PHONE INTO HER BROTHER, WE
ALSO HAVE THE POLICE
OFFICERS TESTIFYING AT THE
HEARING THAT, THAT THERE WAS
A PHONE CALL TO JULIUS
LAWRENCE AND THE JULIUS
LAWRENCE HAD REPORTED THIS
TO HIS SISTER.
>>> I DIDN'T RECALL THOUGH
ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE
OCCURRED AT APPROXIMATELY
THE SAME SHORTLY BEFORE.
>> BEFORE BECAUSE WE KNOW
THAT --
>> WE KNOW THAT BEFORE.
>> THAT IS THE DEFENSE
CONTENTION.
>> THE DEFENSE SUPPRESSED
THE CONTENT OF THAT
CONVERSATION, THAT IS WHERE
YOU ARE HEADEDING?
>> NO.
>> PLEASE KEEP GOING.
>> IT WAS NEVER INTRODUCED
INTO EVIDENCE.
THE CONTENT OF THAT.
>> YOU DIDN'T TRY TO, YOU
DIDN'T, NOT YOU, BUT THE
THIRD TRIAL BECAUSE
PRESUMABLY IN THE SECOND
TRIAL, THE JUDGE WAS UNCOME
FO FORTABLE HAVING THAT
CONVERSATION COMING OUT.
>> HAVING THAT CONVERSATION
COMING OUT THROUGH STEPHANIE
RATHER THAN THROUGH THE
BOYFRIEND.
>> THE BOYFRIEND DID NOT
TESTIFY.
>> IN EITHER TRIAL.
I DON'T BELIEVE HE TESTIFIED
IN THE SECOND TRIAL.
HE DIDN'T TESTIFY IN THE
THIRD.
>> NEITHER SIDE TRIED TO
ELIT SIT TO TRY GET THAT IN
AS EXCITED UTTERANCE.
>> THERE HAD BEEN, THE JUDGE
HAD MADE A FINDING THAT
JULIUS'S STATEMENT WAS
EXCITED UTTERANCE.
EXCUSE ME.
THE LISA STATEMENT WAS
EXCITED UTTERANCE, I DIDN'T
FIND IN THAT THE RECORD.
I DIDN'T FIND IT IN THE
THIRD TRIAL THAT JULIUS
ACTUALLY TESTIFIED.
>> FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT
IS BE AENCE NOW.
I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON FOR
A MOMENT THE GILLESPIE
STATEMENT.
I THINK I AM PROBABLY IN MY
BRAIN TAKING THE RECENT
DAVIS OPINION FROM THE
SUPREME COURT ABOUT PRIMARY
PURPOSE AND MIXING IT WITH
EXCITED UTTERANCE, BUT LET'S
JUST TALK ABOUT IT AS
EXCITED UTTERANCE.
MY PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT
SHE IS CLEARLY IN A STATE
THAT IS A DIRE PHYSICAL
STATE, BUT THE CONVERSATION
THAT SHE IS HAVING WITH THE
GILLESPIE IS HE IS SAYING
NOW, WHO, YOU KNOW, WHO DID
THIS TO YOU?
YOU KNOW?
WHO THAT IS?
IT SEEMS FAIRLY, AT THAT
POINT, INVESTIGATE ORIE AND
SINCE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT
IT AS A DYING DECLARATION,
ISN'T THE FACT THAT
STATEMENTS ARE MADE IN
RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS AS OPPOSED TO THE
911 CALL DIFFERENT SITUATION
THAN EITHER THE HOSPITAL
STATEMENTS OR THE -- WELL
MAYBE NOT THE HOSPITAL
STATEMENTS, BUT CERTAINLY,
THE 911 CALLS?
>> I DON'T THINK IT IS
DISTINCTION CAN BE DRAWN
THERE.
YOU DON'T THINK THERE IS A
CLEAR BREAK.
NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE THE 911
OPERATOR ON THE PHONE AND
OFFICER GILLESPIE ENTERS SO
IT IS AT THE SAME TIME AND
WHEN OFFICER GILLESPIE IS
TALKING TO HER, LISA CLEARLY
DID NOT AT A POINT OF
SAFETY, THAT WHILE THE
PARAMEDICS HAVE ARRIVED, YOU
KNOW?
THEY ARE JUST STARTING THEIR
TREATMENT.
>> THAT PUTS IT TO THAT
PRIMARY PURPOSE UNDER DAVIS?
I AM JUST LOOKING AT THE
EXCITED UTTERANCE, IT IS NOT
LIKE SHE IS LYING, THERE THE
PARAMEDICS THERE, OH, MY
GOD, I, YOU KNOW, HE STABBED
ME, HE STABBED ME, YOU KNOW?
SO AND SO STABBED ME.
>> OFFICER GILLESPIE SAYS
SHE IS ANXIOUS, NERVOUS
TALKING ABOUT DYING SHE IS
WORRIED ABOUT HERSELF.
SHE IS SAYING, YOU KNOW,
RONNIE -- IT'S THE SAME
ANSWER SHE GAVE TO THE 911
OPERATOR WHEN 911 OPERATOR
SAYS, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN I
HELP YOU?
>> BOTH OF THEM IN REPONCE
TO A QUESTION, I THINK?
DID YOU ANSWER THAT AS PECK.
THEY ARE RESPONSE TO A
QUESTION, BUT NOT
INTERROGATION-TYPE QUESTION.
IT IS STILL MORE, WELL, WHAT
HAPPENED.
I CAN SEE YOU ARE STAR STA
BEED WHAT HAPPENED?
>> WOULD YOU SAY ON THE
STANDARD REVIEW, THAT IS
WHAT THAT THE JUDGE LISTENED
TO GILLESPIE DESCRIBING THIS
SITUATION AN THAT THAT IS
MORE ON THE NIR OF SOME
FACUAL DETERMINATION ABOUT
WHAT HER STATE OF MIND WAS
AND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
JUST DECIDE THAT IS A MATTER
OF LAW.
AGAIN, THAT IS A FRIENDLY
QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I THINK THAT GREAT SHOULD
BE GIVEN TO THE TRIAL FOR
HAVING HEARD THE WITNESSES.
THIS COURT COULD FIND AND IT
IS A SAFE POSITION THAT THE
COURT DID FIND A DYING
DECLARATION FOR ALL OF THE
STATEMENT.
WHEN YOU READ HIS ORDER,
THERE IS A SUM MATION
PARAGRAPH.
-- THE COURT FINDS THAT ON
THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE
TOTALITY OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH AT
THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING THAT
THE STATE HAS LAID A
SUFFICIENT PREDICATE TO THE
DECLARATIONS AND THE SAMES
OF LISA DIKE TO COME INTO
EVIDENCE AS DYING
DECLARATION.
>> CAN I -- THIS QUESTION IS
TO GIVE YOU A REAL LAW
SCHOOL QUESTION, ASSUMING
THAT THE 911 STATEMENTS ARE
BOTH EXCITED UTTERANCE, THE
GILLESPIE STATEMENTS ARE
EXCITED UTTERANCE, ASSUMING
THEY ARE NOW THE PRIMARY
PURPOSE IS NOW TO GET
MEDICAL ATTENTION SO THEY
ALSO WOULD MEET THE CRAWFORD
DAVIS THING THEY ARE
NON-TESTIMONIAL.
THE HOSPITAL STATEMENTS
COULD BE TESTIMONIAL EVEN
THOUGH THEY ARE A DYING
DECLARATION, WOULD YOU AGREE
WITH THAT, THAT YOU CAN HAVE
THAT UNDERER?
>> YES, ALL RIGHT.
>> HOWEVER, THEN YOU HAVE
THE ISSUE THAT WHERE THE
PERSON RECURS THE
UNAVAILABILITY OF THE
WITNESS, THEY SHOULD NOT
PROFIT --
>> HOW, THOUGH, AGAIN, I AM
-- WE MAY NOT REACH IT
BECAUSE IT IS NOT PRESERVED
OR WHATEVER, HOW, WHAT WOULD
THE STANDARD BE AS TO HOW
THE JUDGE DECIDES IF THE
PERSON, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU
DON'T KNOW BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THIS
DEFENDANT KILLED THE VICTIM,
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE, WHAT
STANDARD TO USE TO DETERMINE
FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING?
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT
QUESTION.
I BELIEVE IF YOU HAVE THE
TESTIMONY THAT -- AND THERE
WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME SORT
OF PREDICATE AS FAR AS THE
STATE BELIEVES THAT THIS IS
THE PERSON WHO DID THE CRIME
SUCH AS PROSABLE CAUSE
STANDARD OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT.
>> AND REMEMBERING THIS
COURT HAS ALREADY HEARD
QUITE A BIT OF TESTIMONY,
YOU HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT
IT IS MR. IAMS WHO HAS DONE
THIS CRIME AND THEN FOR
MR. WILLIAMS TO COME IN AND
SAY THAT I AM SORRY, I
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
CROSS-EXAMINE FOR SHE THE
WITNESSES IS UNAVAILABLE
THAT IS INTO THE FORFEITURE
BY WRONGDOING.
>> PROBABLY CAUSE.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME
EVIDENCE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE
PENT OF THE HEARSAY
STATEMENT THAT THIS
DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE
CRIME.
YOU CAN'T USE THE SAME
HEARSAY STATEMENT TO PROVE
HE US THE ONE THAT COMMITTED
IT TO LET IT IN AS FOR FIT
TURE.
>> OKAY.
OF COURSE I AM NOT THE
LEGISLATURE.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME.
>> IN THE CASE, WE DO HAVE
THAT.
IF YOU MAKE THAT THE
STANDARD, WE HAVE THAT.
WE HAVE BITE MARKS.
I THINK IT IS CONCITIESAL.
>> I THINK IT IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
YOU HAVE THAT.
YOU HAVE THAT COMFORT LEVEL
YOU HAVE HIS BITE MARKS
WHICH ARE RIPPING AND
TEARING BITE MARK, YOU KNOW?
INTENDED TO IN FICT PAIN.
YOU HAVE HIS BLOODY
FINGERPRINTS AT THE SCENE.
YOU HAVE THIS IS DNA AT THE
SCENE.
>> THE STANDARD THEN, HAVE
COURTS USED PROBABLY CAUSE?
>> I WOULD SAY PROBABLY
CAUSE.
WOULD YOU SAY IT.
>> NO.
ARE THEIR CASES THAT TALK
ABOUT WHAT THE STANDARD IS?
>> THAT DIDN'T LOOK AT, YOUR
HONOR.
I WOULD SAY, IT WOULD BE
SOMETHING OF A PROBABLY
CAUSE NATURE.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO MUCH
HIGHER THAN THAT BECAUSE
THEN THE JURY CAN MAKE THE
DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT
IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO
ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME
AND GO FORWARD WITH THAT.
>> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT,
BEFORE THE PERSON IS
ARRESTED AND YOU GOT
PROBABLY CAUSE, I MEAN,
THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE
PROBABLY CAUSE, SO YOU NEEDNO CARRIERRINGCONNECT 115200,,
>> I BELIEVE ALL, I THINK I
CITED EVERYTHING THAT, WHERE
THE DECLARE ANT DID DIE BUT,
THE STANDARD ISN'T THAT THE
PERSON HAS TO DIE.
THE PERSON HAS TO BELIEVE
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DIE.
AND CLEARLY WE HAVE
STATEMENTS, FROM THE 911
OPERATOR.
WE HAVE STATEMENTS TO
OFFICER GILLESPI AND WE HAVE
STATEMENTS AT THE HOSPITAL
THAT, LISA WAS STILL
CONCERNED, AM I GOING TO
DIE?
WILL I DIE?
I DON'T WANT TO DIE.
THOSE TYPE OF THINGS.
>> THERE IS ALSO SOME
EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE
PARAMEDICS AT THE SCENE
SAYING SHE WAS NOT GOING TO
MAKE IT.
>> THEY DIDN'T THINK --
>> DO WE KNOW IF THOSE
STATEMENTS WERE IN HER
PRESENCE OR WHAT THE STATUS
OF THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN?
>> THEY WERE IN HER PRESENCE
BUT, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT
SHE HEARD THEM.
SHE WAS GOING IN AND OUT OF
CONSCIOUSNESS.
I CAN TELL YOU SHE -- SHE
WAS, I THINK ABOUT FIVE TWO,
I MIGHT BE WRONG.
18-YEAR-OLD BLACK FEMALE.
YET WHEN THE OFFICERS FOUND
HER SHE WAS ASHEN, ASHEN
COLOR.
THERE WAS CLEARLY, AWFUL LOT
OF BLOOD LOSS BY THAT TIME.
SHE WAS, SHE WAS TELLING
THE -- SHE WAS TELLING THE,
911 OPERATOR SHE HAD BEEN
STABBED IN THE HEART.
SHE HAD BEEN STABBED IN THE
LUNGS.
SHE KNEW SHE WAS IN DIRE
STRAITS.
YOU HAVE STAB WOUNDS TO
MAJOR ORGANS.
>> WHAT THE CODE SAYS A
STATEMENT MADE BY DECLARANT
REASONABLY BELIEVING HIS OR
HER DEATH WAS IMMINENT ABOUT
WHAT CAUSED HER INJURIES IN
THIS CASE, ANYBODY CAN
REALLY ARGUE REASONABLY
BELIEVED IN THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE DEATH
WAS IMMINENT?
>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS I
DON'T THINK THERE IS AN
ARGUEMENT THAT CAN BE MADE
THAT SHE DIDN'T REASONABLY
BELIEVE SHE WAS DYING.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A,
WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE,
ISSUE FOUR AND THE PREGNANCY.
THE PREGNANCY WAS, SOMETHING
THAT, WAS CLEAR, AND, COULD
NOT BE, EXCISED FROM LISA.
SHE WAS ALMOST EIGHT MONTHS
PREGNANT.
SHE SAID SHE WAS SEVEN
MONTHS THREE WEEKS.
RONNIE KEITH WILLIAMS
SOCIALIZED WITH HER.
HE CLEARLY KNEW SHE WAS A
PREGNANT GIRL.
AND, ALSO, WITH REGARD TO
THE THIRD-DEGREE MURDER
INSTRUCTION, THE TRIAL COURT
CORRECTED DEFENSE COUNSEL
AND SAID, NO, THE, THAT YOU
HAD ASKED FOR THE
THIRD-DEGREE MURDER AND THAT
THAT'S WHY SO EVEN THOUGH
DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID I ONLY,
ASKED FOR, THIRD-DEGREE
AFTER YOU LET THIS
INFORMATION IN, THE COURT'S
RECOLLECTION, THE TRIAL
COURT'S RECOLLECTION WAS
OTHERWISE THAT IT WAS THE
THIRD-DEGREE MURDER THAT WAS
ASKED FOR FIRST.
THIRD-DEGREE, EXCUSE ME,
FELONY MURDER.
AND, THEN, THERE WAS A
DETERMINATION ON THE
PREGNANCY.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER, ANY
OTHER REASON FOR THE
PREGNANCY TO BE DISCLOSED?
>> IT WOULD GO ALSO TO,
SHOWING THAT THERE WAS
NONCONSENSUAL SEX.
>> WOULD HAVE ANY BEARING ON
HAC?
>> YES BUT IT'S NOT -- IT
CERTAINLY HAS A BEARING ON
HAC BUT NOT THE ONLY THING
WE HAVE TO SUPPORT HAC.
THOSE STAB WOUNDS WERE
PRETTY, PRETTY DEEP AND
THERE WERE PLENTY OF
DEFENSIVE WOUNDS.
ONE OTHER THING I FORGOT TO
MENTION FOR POINT ONE IT'S
THE STATE'S CONTENTION THAT
THE CHALLENGE TO THE EXCITED
UTTERANCE IS ALSO NOT
PRESERVED BECAUSE, AND THAT
WRAPS INTO I THINK IT'S
POINT TWO, WHERE, APPLE LANT
IS CLAIMING THAT THE EXCITED
UTTERANCE WAS SOMETHING THE
TRIAL COURT CAME UP WITH
WITHOUT THE STATE ASKING FOR
IT.
IT'S CLEAR THE STATE WAS
GOING FOR DYING DECLARATION
ON ALL OF LISA'S STATEMENTS.
IT'S THE STATE'S CONTENTION
THAT EXCITED UTTERANCE
CHALLENGE IS NOT PRESERVED.
AND, AND, IF YOU LOOK AT,
THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE
WITHOUT HER STATEMENTS, WE
HAVE, BLOOD IN THE HOUSE, WE
HAVE BLOODY FINGERPRINTS, A
BLOODY FINGERPRINT IN THE
HOUSE.
WE HAVE, ALSO, THE, BITE
MARKS, AND WE HAVE HIS, HIS
HANDS BEING CUT.
>> BITE MARKS --
>> BREAST.
>> BITE MARK EVIDENCE PERSON
WHO SAID THESE WERE HIS?
>> YES.
WE HAD A DENTIST COME IN.
FORENSIC DENTIST.
AND HE SAID THAT THOSE,
THOSE BITE MARKS WERE FROM
RONNIE.
THERE WAS ONE THAT HE
ACTUALLY COULD IDENTIFY
CLEARLY BUT THEN HE ALSO
SAID, THAT THE OTHERS WERE
MADE YOU ABOUT THE SAME,
SAME SET OF TEETH.
>> ARE YOU ARGUING
HARMLESS -- NOT ARGUING
HARMLESS ERROR?
>> I'M ARGUING IF EVERYTHING
GOES OUT YES YOU STILL HAVE
ENOUGH.
>> THAT'S NOT HOW WE
APPROACH THE HARMLESS ERROR.
THERE IS PRETTY EMOTIONAL
VALUE TO HEARING -- I MEAN
THIS IMAGE OF THIS SMALL,
PREGNANT WOMAN WITH STAB
WOUNDS SAYING RODNEY DID IT.
THERE IS SOMETHING PRETTY --
AND THEN HE RAPED ME, THAT'S
PRETTY POWERFUL EVIDENCE AND
I'M SURE, NOT HAVING LOOKED
AT THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS
THAT CERTAINLY WAS USED --
>> THE TAPE WAS USED.
>> AS A PREDOMINANT PART OF
THE STATE'S CASE WHICH I
WOULD THINK THEY WOULD BUT,
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO THINK
THAT IF WE FIND, AT LEAST
ALL OF THEM ERROR, THAT
WOULD BE HARMLESS.
MAYBE ONE OF THEM PERHAPS.
>> TWO OF THEM MAYBE
[LAUGHING]
IF THE COURT DOESN'T HAVE
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> CLARIFY FOR ME, WHEN YOU
SAY THAT THE EXCITED
UTTERANCE OBJECTION WASN'T
PRESERVED I'M NOT SURE I
UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUEMENT
ABOUT THAT?
>> WHAT WAS ARGUED AT THE
SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS THAT
THESE STATEMENTS WERE DYING
DECLARATIONS.
>> THIS WAS THE ARGUMENT OF
THE STATE, RIGHT?
>> THIS IS THE --
>> THE STATE WAS USING THAT
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY
RULE IN ORDER TO GET THESE
MATTERS IN IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
YOUR HONORH?.
THEN WHEN THE ORDER CAME OUT
IT ALSO INCLUDED EXCITED
UTTERANCES FOR SOME OF THOSE
STATEMENTS.
ACTUALLY FOR ALL OF THOSE
STATEMENTS.
>> I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY --
YOU ARGUING THAT AS
PRESERVATION ISSUE IF IT WAS
THE TRIAL COURT THAT FIRST
INTERJECTED THAT INTO THE
ANALYSIS.
>> AND THE DEFENSE NEVER
OBJECTED.
NEVER SAID, WAIT, YOUR HONOR
THAT WAS NOT ARGUED BEFORE
YOU.
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE FOUND
THAT.
THE STATE, -- MAKE ALL THE
SAME ARGUMENTS HE IS MAKING
HERE HE SHOULD HAVE, SHOULD
HAVE MADE BELOW TO PUT THE
TRIAL COURT ON NOTICE THAT
THERE WERE ANY DEFICIENCIES
IN THE STATE'S PRESENTATION
TO SUPPORT THE EXCITED
UTTERANCE.
HAD HE DONE THAT AND,
POINTED OUT ANY DEFICIENCY!!IES
HE MAY HAVE SEEN THE STATE,
MIGHT HAVE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ANY
DEFICIENCIES THAT HE IS NOW
CLAIMING.
>> STATE WAS NOT ADVOCATING
THE USE OF EXCITED
UTTERANCES IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE IN ORDER TO GET
THIS EVIDENCE IN.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE
CERTAINLY GETTING THE CART
BEFORE THE HORSE.
IF THE STATE IS ADVOCATING
ONLY A DYING DECLARATION
EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY
RULE, TO GET SOME EVIDENCE
IN, OKAY, THEN IT SEEMS TO
ME FOR THE STATE TO RELY ON
THE EXCITED UTTERANCE, THE
STATE WOULD HAVE HAD TO
ADVOCATED IN ADDITION TO
THIS EXCEPTION, THAT WE'RE
ALSO ENTITLED TO THE EXCITED
UTTERANCE.
I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH
THE BURDEN BEING PLACED ON
THE DEFENSE NOW --
>> AS A PRESERVATION
ARGUMENT?
>> RIGHT.
>> WELL THE STATE WAS ASKING
FOR THE DYING DECLARATIONS
THROUGH THEM COULD TO COME
THROUGH AS DYING
DECLARATIONS.
>> PERIOD.
>> PERIOD.
THE COURT FOUND THERE WAS
OTHER BASIS TO BRING THEM
IN.
THE STATE WAS NOT ASKING FOR
THAT.
I BELIEVE THE BURDEN SHIFTS
TO THE DEFENSE IF HE WISHES
TO CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT
ON THAT POINT HE NEEDED TO
BRING THAT BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT THE WHICH HE HAS NOT
DONE.
>> AFTER YOU'VE HAD AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
COMPLETELY FOCUSED ON
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A
DYING DECLARATION?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THEN IT'S THE DEFENSE'S
BURDEN TO CORRECT THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGE WHO NOW, RELIES
ON AN ARGUMENT THAT WASN'T
EVEN ASSERTED OR USED BY THE
STATE?
>> TO PRESERVE IT FOR
HEARING I BELIEVE HE DOES
BECAUSE, YOU HAVE, THE,
DEFENSE BRINGING FORWARD,
THE STATE BRINGING FORWARD
ONE BASIS FOR AN ADMISSION
OF A STATEMENT.
AND THE DEFENSE CHALLENGING
THE DYING DECLARATION WHICH
IS WHAT THE STATE WAS
PRESENTING, AND, THEN THE
TRIAL COURT COMING IN WITH A
SECOND BASIS.
SO, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S
ANY DEFICIENCY IN THE
TRANSCRIPT ON AN EXCITED
UTTERANCE CERTAINLY COULD
HAVE CLEARED THAT UP AT THE
TRIAL LEVEL HAD IT BEEN
BROUGHT BEFORE THE TRIAL
COURT TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS
AN INCORRECT RULING.
>> WE UNDERSTAND YOUR
ARGUMENT.
WITH OUR HELP WE HAVE
EXHAUSTED YOUR TIME.
WE THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR
ARGUMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. ANDERSON YOU HAVE A
BRIEF PERIOD OF REBUTTAL.
>> BRIEFLY I'D LIKE TO,
QUICKLY ADDRESS JUSTICE
BELL'S QUESTION ABOUT THE
EVIDENCE CODE REGARDING
DYING DECLARATION.
THE PHRASE REASONABLE
BELIEF.
I THINK THAT'S APPLIED TO
CASES LIKE WHERE SOMEONE HAS
VERY MINOR INJURIES AND THEY
HAVE AN UNREASONABLE BELIEF
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DIE
THAT'S TAKEN OUT OF THE
PICTURE.
IT HAS TO BE ACCORDING YOU
KNOW TO THE LAW AND STUFF
EXTREME.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT
PHRASE IS IN THERE.
YOU STILL HAVE TO BELIEF
DEATH IS CERTAIN.
>> RIGHT.
>> OKAY.
AND ALSO ADDRESSING THE
TRIAL COURT'S ORDER, I THINK
HE DIVIDES THE HOSPITAL AND
NONHOSPITAL STATEMENTS.
AND EVEN AT 1359 OF THE
RECORD, WHEN HE IS TALKING
ABOUT THE RAPE ALLEGATIONS,
HE SPECIFIES, I ADMITTED
THOSE AS EXCITED UTTERANCES.
AS TO PRESERVATION OF THE
EXCITED UTTERANCE ISSUE,
THIS COURT TALKED ABOUT
HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS AND
WHAT'S NEEDED TO PRESERVE
THOSE BY DEFENSE COUNSEL.
AND, IN ANDREWS VERSUS STATE,
THIS COURT DECIDED JUST A
HEARSAY OBJECTION IS NEEDED
AND THAT PRESERVES ANY
OBJECTION PREDICATE.
AND THAT'S IN MY REPLY
BRIEF.
THE CITE TO THAT.
AS FAR AS, LISA DYKE'S
CONSCIOUSNESS DURING THE
30-MINUTE PERIOD BEFORE SHE
MADE THE CALL TO 911, THE
JUDGE MADE A SPECIFIC
FINDING ALTHOUGH IT'S IN THE
CCP FINDING THAT SHE WAS
CONSCIOUS DURING THAT ENTIRE
PERIOD.
AND I THINK IT'S FROM THE
EVIDENCE ABOUT THE, TAKING A
SHOWER AND LOCKING THE DOOR.
AND I'D LIKE TO CORRECT ONE
THING THAT, SEMEN WAS LOOKED
FOR IN THIS CASE.
THEY COULDN'T EXAMINE LISA
DYKE BECAUSE SHE WAS BEING
RUSHED OFF TO SURGERY BUT
THEY DID LOOK AT HER
UNDERGARM CENTS, HIS
CLOTHING AND THE SCENE FOR
SEMEN BUT THEY DIDN'T FIND
ANY.
AND JUST FINAL THING, LISA
DYKE INVOLVING HER
CONVERSATION, THE THREE-WAY
CONVERSATION THAT OCCURRED
BETWEEN RUTH LAWRENCE,
STEPHANIE LAWRENCE AND
RONNIE WILLIAMS, SHE WAS ON
THE PHONE BUT SHE DIDN'T
SPEAK DURING THAT
CONVERSATION.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS?
THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU.
ONE QUESTION.
>> WAS HE ACTUALLY CONVICTED
OF SEXUAL BATTERY?
>> NO.
>> THAT WASN'T CHARGED.
WAS IT?
>> HE WASN'T CHARGED.
>> HE WAS CONTRICT CONVICTED
FELONY MURDER?
>> YES.
>> WAS THAT BASED ON THE
RAPE?
>> THE STATE HIT HARD ON THE
TAPED STATEMENT.
THEY ASKED THE JURY LISTEN
TO IT FIVE SIX TIMES.
THAT'S THE FELONY MURDER
WE'RE PROVING.
>> SEXUAL BATTERY WITH THE
BITES AND THOSE THINGS AS
WELL, WOULD THOSE NOT
QUALIFY?
>> I HAVE RESEARCHED THAT
BOTH, FINDINGS AND CASES AND,
THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE AND THERE IS NO
EXPERTISE WILL TESTIFY THAT
YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S OCCURRING
BECAUSE OF A BITE AS FAR AS
A SEXUAL CRIME.
THEY EVEN HAVE TOUGH TIMES
NOW WITH IDENTIFICATION.
THAT'S BEING SCRUTINIZED BUT,
THE TO GO FURTHER IT'S NOT
BEEN DONE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE COURT WILL STAND IN
RECESS UNTIL 8:30 TOMORROW
MORNING.
>> PLEASE RISE