People v. Sommerville

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a victim’s statement to police did not qualify as an excited utterance when the statement came after the victim had already had a lengthy conversation about the assault with her fiancé
• finding spontaneity and immediacy required for spontaneous declaration removed when rape victim responded to several questions posed to her on the telephone by her fiancé, including: “What’s wrong?” “By who?” “Are you okay?” and “is he there with you now?”
• finding spontaneity and immediacy required for spontaneous declaration removed when rape victim responded to several questions posed to her on the telephone by her fiance, including: \What's wrong?\ \By who?\ \Are you okay?\ and \is he there with you now?\
• victim’s previous discussion with her fiancé destroyed the spontaneity of any statement given to the police officer
• “simply referring to an attorney *** does not automatically constitute an invocation of the right to counsel”
• “simply referring to an attorney *** does not automatically constitute an invocation of the right to counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).