In the Case of Bell V

Multiple Choice

In the case of Bell v. State, the Florida defendant stood trial for attempted kidnapping. He accosted the victim at gunpoint while she was walking along a street. She ran away into traffic and eventually called police. She managed to call police and talk to them at her residence, but she was barely able to speak coherently due to her fear and fright. The defendant argued that the officers should not have been permitted to tell the court what she said because he contended that her statements did not constitute an excited utterance. On review, it was held that:

A) because the statement made by the victim was to a police officer, it was not admissible as a spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule.
B) the time lapse between the attempted kidnapping and the utterance to police made the excited utterance exception inapplicable.
C) the fact that the statement by the victim was made some distance and some time from the scene of the attempted kidnapping was sufficient to destroy spontaneity and make the statement inadmissible.
D) the trial court did not err in admitting the statement under the spontaneous declara?tion exception to the hearsay rule.