United States v. Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998 · Evidence

145 F.3d 572 (3d Cir. 1998)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsaypresent sense impressionexcited utteranceresidual exceptionRule 803(1)Rule 803(2)Rule 803(24)

Facts

After an armed robbery, police received an anonymous 911 call reporting that a beige car had been dumped and that the suspects had switched into another car. Police found the beige getaway car and recovered an anonymous note from the front seat stating, "Light green ZPJ-254. They changed cars; this is the other car," which led police to a green Buick registered to Mitchell's fiancee. The government used the note to connect Mitchell to the robbery, along with fingerprint testimony and testimony from Kim Chester about pre-robbery discussions. Mitchell objected that the anonymous note was inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause.

Issue

Whether an anonymous note found in the getaway car, stating that the robbers had switched into another identified car, was admissible as a present sense impression, an excited utterance, or under the residual hearsay exception. If its admission was erroneous, the court also had to decide whether the error was harmless.

Rule

For present sense impression and excited utterance exceptions, the proponent must show that the declarant personally perceived the event described, and the statement must satisfy the relevant temporal and spontaneity requirements. When the statement is anonymous, the proponent bears a heavier burden to show circumstantial trustworthiness; the surrounding circumstances must make it more likely than not that the declarant actually observed the event rather than guessed or repeated someone else. Under the residual exception, the statement must possess equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness from the circumstances surrounding its making, and that trustworthiness cannot be established by bootstrapping from corroborating evidence introduced at trial.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a jewelry-store robbery in Newark, police find an unsigned card on the hood of an abandoned scooter reading, "Black sedan MTR-661 picked them up." No witness can say who wrote the card, where the writer was standing, or whether the writer actually saw anyone leave in the sedan.

If the prosecution offers the card to prove the robbers switched into the black sedan, how should the court rule?

Explanation. For present sense impression, the proponent must show personal perception, description of the event, and contemporaneity. When the statement is anonymous, the burden is heavier: the surrounding circumstances must show more likely than not that the writer actually observed the event. Here, nothing shows who wrote the card or whether the writer saw the switch, so the statement is inadmissible.