Judge admits 911 bystander statements as "excited utterance," overrules Crawford objection

The judge presiding over the trial of Joseph Charles Freeman ruled that a woman's statements captured on a 911 call after the March 27, 2022 shooting are admissible as an excited utterance.

"After having watched the video, her statement does not implicate herself or anyone else for that matter," the judge said, concluding the statement was not testimonial and therefore Crawford v. Washington's confrontation requirement did not bar admission. The court said the statement was "a very excited one" and allowed the prosecution to publish the clip to the jury.

Defense counsel had objected, arguing the statements were hearsay and that the defense was entitled to cross‑examine the declarant under Crawford. The prosecutor urged the court the remarks were non‑testimonial and fell within the excited‑utterance exception. The judge said he would consider whether the statement was testimonial and after reviewing precedents (including Wall v. State) found it non‑testimonial on these facts and overruled the objection.

Prosecutors told jurors earlier they would play a 911 recording and body‑worn camera footage as part of their case showing the shooting and its immediate aftermath. The judge acknowledged counsel may still cross‑examine the declarant if she later testifies but said the narrow bystander statements captured on the emergency call could be shown to the jury now.

The ruling cleared the way for the state to play the audio and portions of a body‑worn recording for jurors; the trial continued with witness testimony and the court scheduling additional witnesses for the following morning.