Normally I would just plow through this on my own, but I'm in a big time crunch, so I'm asking for help. Does anyone have a really good analysis of excited utterances under Crawford?

And also, am I the only person who NEVER gets served by pro se defendants? They sign the certificate of service, but I never get a copy. Once again I've had to call the Court of Appeals to get a copy of the defendant's brief, and once again, I'm filing my response late. I'll take some blame for not putting this case on my notification list on the court website, but I'm still annoyed.

Thanks for any help anyone can give me.

Stephanie
stephanie.stephens@co.nacogdoches.tx.us

Sorry, haven't had the pleasure of briefing this topic post-Crawford. However, the Third COA recently issued a thoughtful opinion on this topic that might help: Davis v. State, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 3773.

And no, pro se defendants almost never serve us, sometimes with bad consequences (such as having to scramble to answer a pro se mandamus that the COA ordered us to respond to).

Good luck!

e-mailed you a huge Crawford outline from APRI. Need Adobe Reader to view it.

Thank you both for your responses. My time restraints lessened when I learned that the clerk's office sent their only copy of the reporter's record to the pro se defendant over six months ago, and he's never returned it. Now my attention has switched to a Motion to Compel Return of the Record.

Stephanie

[This message was edited by Stephanie Stephens on 06-20-05 at .]

You may also want to see what the State argues in its PDR in Wall, No. PD-1631-04 filed by Harris County, opinion below at 143 S.W.3d 846.

The Summer 2005 issue of Criminal Justice (a quarterly publication distributed to memebers of the ABA Section of Criminal Justice) is a Crawford Symposium.

Myrna S. Raeder's article "Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, and Trustworthiness Exceptions After Crawford" breaks down "excited utterance" cases into the following general categories: (1) statements made in person to police officers arriving at the scene, (2) statements made in person to police officers as a result of questioning either at the scene or later, (3) statements made in 911 calls, and (4) statemenst made to private individuals. She notes that excited utterances have been treated differently depending on the category.

It's a lengthy article and it (and the whole issue) might be worth a read.

2006 WL 119575, Wall v. State, (Tex. Crim. App., PD-1631-04, Jan. 18, 2006) as yet not released for publication.

Note also that the State's PDR in Mason v. State, 173 S.W.3d 105 was refused yesterday. That's a pretty big conflict in authorities that remains alive out there.