[Tall_Texan]

It is indeed hearsay, but it is nevertheless relevant because it's indicative of whether she was claiming to have been raped right after the incident, not after twelve hours of persuasion by her parents and her own guilty self. So, also, should those reports of her describing his enormity with hand gestures, if they appear to be reliable. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I'll start by admitting I'm no attorney and have no law degree. I realize there are exclusions to the hearsay rule and this type of situation fits one of those exclusions.

But here's the other side of the coin. The judge my rule that the comment draws a conclusion that would so prejudice the jury as to outweigh the relevance of the comment. In other words, the jury is going to more likely believe a rape because the victim told the man she was raped than whether there is other evidence to refute or substantiate the claim.

Let's say that I was walking through a hotel hallway and there was some loud noises. As my attention builds, I see Cynwoody coming out of the room where the noises came from, breathless and clothes rumpled. Cathcing her breath, she says "I was just forced to have sex with Christopher Reeve."

That you told me this is true. I could testify truthfully to what you said. But whether you were actually raped by Mr. Reeve may be a flat-out lie. Still, if I repeat your claim under oath, the jury has now been told by a third party that you were raped by Mr. Reeve.

THAT'S prejudicial because the other evidence at trial may not support any such thing (in fact, Mr. Reeve is no physical condition to rape a woman - that's why I used him as an example) and yet a jury may tend to believe a hearsay witness instead of the actual evidence.

If the bellhop's story is true (and there do appear to be some questions), the bellhop can safely testify about what he has first-hand knowledge about - what time the accuser left the room, her physical and mental condition, the condition of her clothes, etc. That's all going to be very useful in deciding the case.

But, IMO, he should not divulge to the jury the quote she is alleged to have said to him. If the physical evidence supports a rape, this comment will be unnecessary. If it doesn't, then this comment should not be allowed to change the mind of any fair-minded juror.

I'll be disappointed in the judge if he allows those words to be said by the witness although I am often disappointed in the performance of judges.

[nyconse]

It can be admitted under Colorado law-according to legal experts:excited utterances or sometime contemporous something or the other I forget the legal mumbo, jumbo. The jury determines if they believe it or not.