Pressey v. State
Delaware Supreme Court
25 A.3d 756 (2011)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Three men robbed Anthony Calm and took Calm’s clothing as he was walking near his house. After the men left, Calm ran home, very upset about the robbery. While Calm put on new clothes, his mother found two police officers in the area. The police officers then chased and arrested Jamour Pressey (defendant). Calm’s mother drove back to pick up Calm and brought him to the arrest scene. At the scene, Calm was crying, shaking, slouching down, and seemingly reluctant to get out of the car. However, Calm did manage to identify Pressey as one of the robbers. Pressey was tried for robbery and resisting arrest. During the trial, Calm’s mother and one of the arresting officers testified that Calm had identified Pressey as a robber at the arrest scene. Pressey argued that this testimony about Calm’s out-of-court identification statement was hearsay. Pressey claimed that at the time Calm made the identification statement, Calm was stressed about his mother forcing him to come to the arrest scene and was not still stressed about the robbery itself. The trial court found that Calm was still stressed by the robbery and that his identification statements met the hearsay exception for an excited utterance. Pressey was convicted and appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.