State Of Louisiana v. Montrell Lee

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 16, 2022
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
MONTRELL LEE
No. 2022-KK-01314
_ _
_ _ _ _
IN
RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 08- 17-0871,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2022 KW 0484;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 16, 2022
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Hughes, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer.
JTG
SJC
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/16/2022 "See News Release 050 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2022-KK-01314
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
MONTRELL LEE
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
Parish of East Baton Rouge
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. Defendant Montrell Lee is charged with two counts of second
degree rape of the victim D.R. After Mr. Lee indicated that he would be objecting to
the admissibility of the 911 call recording made by the victim and a friend through
a translator , the S tate filed a motion in limine seeking a pretrial ru ling on its
admissibility. The district court ruled the portion of the 911 call before the 14
minutes, 18 seconds timestamp was admissible, but thereafter the call became
investigatory and contained hearsay within hearsay. The district court found the
statements after 14:18 did not qualify as an excited utterance and w ere too far
removed from the incident in question, and thus the court found that portion of the
tape to be inadmissible.
The court of appeal denied the State’s writ application. State v. Lee, 22-0484
(La. App. 1 Cir. 8/17/22) (unpub’d) . Judge Whipple, dissenting in the court of
appeal, would grant the State’s motion in limine, concluding the trial court abused
its discretion by ruling that only a portion of the 911 call would be admitted. We
agree. As evidenced by the contents of the call, the primary purpose was to handle
an ongoing emergency rather than obtain information for prosecution. See Michigan
v. Br
yant, 562 U.S. 344, 358, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1155, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) . As the
crime occu rred outside of the victim’s apartment in her car by an unidentified
11/16/22

2

perpetrator, the questions the 911 operator asked of the victim were primarily aimed
at obtaining information to identify and locate the assailant who was in possession
of a weapon and wh o had been walking around the area, ascertain ing whether the
victim needed emergency medical attention, and determining the closest hospital and
how the victim would get there . Furthermore, following the 14:18 timestamp, the
911 operator continues to ask if the person who assaulted victim was still in the area
where the assault occurred, if the perpetrator got in a vehicle or if he was running ,
or whether he lived in the area.
The excited utterance exception under the hearsay rules requires that there be
an occurrence or event sufficiently startling to render normal reflective thought
processes of an observer inoperative. Additionally, the statement must have been a
spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not the resul t of reflective
thought. State v. Henderson, 362 So.2d 1358 (La. 9/5/78); see also State v. Williams,
18-1082, p. 8 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/9/19), 277 So.3d 337, 343. Following the timestamp
at issue, the victim appears to still be distressed, with the operator attempting to calm
the victim of a traumatic event. Courts have found instances of excited utterances
with similar timespans. See State v. Reaves , 569 So.2d 650, 653 (La. App. 2 Cir.
10/31/90), writ denied, 576 So.2d 25 (La. 3/1/91).
As a result of the n ecessity of having to provide translation between the
parties, the length of the 911 call is longer than a call that would not need that
intermediary. However, the call occurred sufficiently close to the incident while the
victim was still under the stress of the event, and the interpreter acted as a language
conduit wherein the interpreted statement may be fairly attributed directly to the
victim. Further more, Mr. Lee has not alleged any bias, lack of proficiency, or
inaccuracy on the part of the interpreter.
Accordingly, we reverse the ruling of the trial court to the extent it found that
only a portion of the 911 call would be admissible. The admittance of the 911 call

3

recording in its entirety does not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the statements
fall within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rules. Accordingly, we find
that the entire 911 call is admissible. We remand for further proceedings consistent
with the views expressed here.
REVERSED AND REMANDED