Cited by

“To qualify as an excited utterance, the statement must be a spontaneous verbal reaction to some startling or shocking event, made at a time when the speaker was still in a state of nervous excitement produced by that event, and before he had time to contrive or misrepresent.” State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 720 (2002) (quotation omitted).

We considered a similar statute in State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710 (2002).

The fact that the victim then allowed Gladstone to test for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases supports the trial court’s finding that the victim made her statements to Gladstone “in order to obtain an accurate diagnosis or proper treatment.” State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 721 (2002) (quotation omitted).

As the trial court found, they “depict [the victim] as extremely disheveled, obviously distraught and obviously upset.” See State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 720 (2002) (rejecting defendant’s argument that victim’s statement was not an excited utterance because it was made after she had had time to reflect when statement was made only minutes after startling event, while victim was “upset, trembling, shaking, and crying”).

State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 721 (2002) (upholding admissibility of statements under Rule 803(4) where the sexual assault medical examination was a two-phase evaluation intended to encompass both medical treatment and evidence gathering).

State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 714-15 (2003) (concluding that the phrase “previously convicted of 2 or more offenses” was not intended to apply to a defendant who sexually assaulted two victims in one simultaneous criminal episode).

To qualify as an excited utterance, the statement “must be a spontaneous verbal reaction to some startling or shocking event, made at a time when the speaker was still in a state of nervous excitement produced by that event and before [s]he had time to contrive or misrepresent.” State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 720 (2002) (quotation omitted).

articular individual said that he was her uncle.” And third, Detective Ed Fedele of the Windham Police Department, who interviewed the victim at the scene of the incident, testified that the victim told him the man she described asked her to go outside with him, she said no, and the man said, “Let’s go.” Hearsay statements are not admissible unless they fall under an exception to the hearsay rule.

“In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the defendant carries the burden of proving that no rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710, 721 (2002) (quotation omitted).

State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 681 (2002) (Gordon I); see also State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710 (2002) (Gordon I); State v. Melvin, 150 N.H. 134 (2003).

We'will not reverse a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.

State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 681 (2002) (Gordon I); State v. Gordon, 148 N.H. 710 (2002) (Gordon II).