Can A Party Excited Utterance in Evidence?

Yes, a party's excited utterance can be admitted into evidence if it meets the criteria established for such statements under the hearsay exception.

An excited utterance is a statement made in response to a startling event and while under the stress of excitement caused by that event. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2), such statements are not classified as hearsay and may be admitted into evidence because they are deemed to have adequate circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. For an excited utterance to be admissible, the statement must be made spontaneously and while the declarant is still in a state of excitement relating to the event.

It is essential that the timing of the statement is closely correlated to the startling event, as the declarant’s continuance of excitement contributes to the credibility of the statement. For example, if a witness observes a car accident and immediately exclaims, "That driver was speeding!" this statement could be classified as an excited utterance because it reflects the declarant's immediate reaction to the shock of witnessing the event. The spontaneity is critical here, as any lapse of time may allow the declarant to reflect and thus potentially fabricate their statement.

In assessing whether a party can invoke the excited utterance exception, courts will consider factors such as the proximity in time between the event and the statement, the declarant's emotional state, and any suggestions of deliberateness in making the statement. Furthermore, even though the statements are not classic hearsay, they may not be admissible if they do not originate from the direct perceptions of the declarant.

Key considerations also include whether the party making the utterance is a witness or a participant involved in the startling event. While a participant’s excited utterances are generally more likely to be admitted, the issue may arise concerning statements made by bystanders or third parties, which may need careful analysis regarding their admissibility under the excited utterance exception.

• 1State v. Smith (1986) - established the criteria for emotional state and timing for excited utterance;
• 2Jones v. State (1993) - clarified the spontaneity requirement;
• 3Harris v. State (2010) - discussed situations involving third-party excited utterances.

• excited-utterance-hearsay-exception
• spontaneous-statement-evidence
• hearsay-definition-and-exceptions