[DoughtyOne]

A recorded 911 call should be considered an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an “excited utterance."

Okay.  I want to push this comment some.  Lets see what you think.

Two weeks prior to her death, a victim calls 911 to state that her boyfriend is trying to kill her.  The police arrive, sure enough, there are signs of physical abuse, and they yank him out of the house.

Is that 911 call admisable as evidence when she is killed two weeks later, and her boyfriend is the supsect?  My take is no.

[wideawake]

No, it is not admissable - unless he is being prosecuted not for her murder but for the beating that took place on the day of the 911 call.

Say, for example, he was being prosecuted solely for assaulting her and while the prosecution was preparing to go to trial she was hit by a city bus and killed in front of witnesses.

The prosecution would not have a complaining witness, but they would have her excited utterance on the 911 tape.

[Publius Valerius]

Is that 911 call admisable as evidence when she is killed two weeks later

Wide, I think this is a tougher call than your initial take. If I'm the state, I think my argument is that it's not hearsay, because I'm not admitting the tape as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that boyfriend was trying to kill her at that moment--but perhaps that boyfriend has a propensity towards violence or to show that girlfriend feared for her life from boyfriend.

I think there are 404 problems with either of the two above approaches, but I think there's room to be creative here.