People v. Farmer

In People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, the victim, who had been shot in the mouth and stomach, made a 911 call to a police dispatcher from the scene of the crime. He told the dispatcher he did not want to speak further because of his wounds. Nevertheless, the dispatcher continued to question the victim and he revealed the shooter's race and age, and said he knew his assailant but could not remember his name. When the police arrived, one officer further questioned the victim about the shooting. The officer recalled he often had to "halt the questioning because of the victim's obvious pain." (Farmer, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 903.) The victim gave the officer a more detailed description of the shooter and said it was one of his roommate's customers. The Farmer court reasoned: "The fact that a statement is made in response to questioning is one factor suggesting the answer may be the product of deliberation, but it does not ipso facto deprive the statement of spontaneity. Thus, an answer to a simple inquiry has been held to be spontaneous. . . . On the record before us we conclude that the court did not err in admitting both conversations. It is true that we have rarely held the answers to such extensive questioning to be spontaneous utterances. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the victim was excited, or perhaps more accurately, distraught and in severe pain. He was not merely an uninjured witness whose excitement might wane--and would thus be in a position to fabricate answers--through the sobering interrogation of an investigator. His responses were not self-serving. Nor were the questions suggestive. While he was being questioned, the intense pain of his gunshot wounds and the concern he rightfully had about his survival no doubt preoccupied him so that he could not have contemplated spinning a false tale." (Id. at p. 904.)