This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A dispute occurred between Charles Evans and D over the ownership of a backgammon set. According to Evans, D threatened him with a gun. The police were called and as Evans was explaining to the police what had happened, D drove by in his car. Officer Reed followed d's car and saw d throw a 'silver-colored object' and a brown paper bag from his car. Officer Reed retrieved the bag and discovered a 32-cal. semi-automatic pistol. D was pulled over and questioned. D made several exculpatory statements to the officers. Officer Reed went back, picked up Evans, and brought him to the 'arrest scene.' Evens identified D, the pistol, and the backgammon set. D was indicted and tried. D moved pre-trial in a limine motion to exclude certain exculpatory statements made by D to the police at the time he was taken into custody. D, in response to a police question about whether the gun was his, answered, 'No,' and in response to a police inquiry about the flourishing of a weapon, D answered, 'You won't be able to make that.' D contends that these statements were admissible as a part of the res gestae or as excited utterances under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2). The district court disagreed and excluded both statements as impermissible hearsay. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.