Contact Me for a Free Consultation (941) 257-5003


Hearsay 911 Telephone Call Theft of Service Dog

Posted by John P. Rutkowski | Sep 30, 2019 | 0 Comments

Theft -- Service dog -- Evidence -- Hearsay -- 911 call made by victim of theft is not inadmissible testimonial statement under Confrontation Clause where primary purpose of call was to summon assistance from police due to recent theft of service dog. Exceptions to the Hearsay rule. Excited utterances. The victim's statements during 911 call describing what occurred, where it occurred, and what evidence of crime was available were offered for truth of matters asserted and are hearsay. Where victim called 911 thirty minutes to an hour after the theft were the victim's demeanor during call sounds calm and factual, and state not offering any evidence other than recording of call to establish that call constituted excited utterance supports the state failed to meet its burden to establish that call was excited utterance. The Defendants' Motion in Limine is GRANTED, and the assertions made during the 911 call are deemed inadmissible hearsay.

Read Opinion Below:

About the Author

John P. Rutkowski

Mr. Rutkowski has been practicing law for the past twenty-five years. Prior to going to law school Mr. Rutkowski served as a deputy sheriff before retiring to attend law school. Upon graduating law school Mr. Rutkowski served as a prosecutor in Florida before going in to private practice and representing clients in three states.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact us

John P. Rutkowski, Attorney at Law, firm represents clients in the area of driving under the influence, boating under the influence, Criminal & Civil Traffic Offenses. Contact me today for a free telephone consultation.