Whether the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois' ruling unconstitutionally expanded
the scope of the excited utterance exception to hearsay as codified in Illinois Rules of
Evidence 803(2) when the multiple hearsay statements admitted at trial were made to the
same person at different times and under different circumstances and when the statements
did not meet the threshold requirement of spontaneity to qualify as excited utterances.

Whether petitioner was denied the constitutional right to due process under the law when
the State repeatedly used multiple hearsay evidence as prior consistent statements to bolster
the testimony of the uncorroborated and heavily impeached witness.

Whether the Third District Appellate Court of Illinois' ruling unconstitutionally expanded the scope of the excited utterance exception to hearsay as codified in Illinois Rules of Evidence 803(2)