Upon Responding to a Domestic Dispute Radio Call in Cox

Essay

Upon responding to a domestic dispute radio call in Cox v. State, Indiana officers observed defendant Cox standing in front of an apartment building talking to another police officer. One deputy found Cox's girlfriend inside an apartment building. He noticed that she was crying and shaking and appeared to be very upset. The officer also noticed that she was talking very quickly and showed signs of a fresh injury, including a cut above her eye that was bleeding; her left eye was swollen; and she was holding an ice pack to her eye. Additionally, she had marks on her neck that appeared to have been caused by someone grabbing her on the neck. Cox contended on appeal that the hearsay testimony of the deputy who told the court some of what the girlfriend told him while she was upset should have been ruled as inadmissible because it failed to fit into any hearsay exception and because his girlfriend did not appear as a witness at the trial. Cox also contended that, if the testimony fell under the excited utterance exception, the prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for the evidence. Should the appellate court reverse the case because the excited utterance exception did not apply in this context? Why or why not? Did it seem that there was a sufficiently startling event? How long would it take for a person who has just been beaten by her boyfriend to calm down? Did the evidence in the case indicate that she had returned to rational thought and contemplation? What kind of foundation for a spontaneous utterance could be made in this case?