How Does Excited Utterance in Evidence?

An excited utterance is a statement made by a declarant during or immediately after a startling event, which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule due to its spontaneous nature and the reduced likelihood of fabrication.

The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule allows statements made in response to a startling event to be admissible as evidence. This is based on the belief that such statements, made in a state of excitement or stress, are less likely to be fabricated. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2), the criteria for an excited utterance include that there must be a startling event and the statement must be made while the declarant is still under the stress of that event. Therefore, the spontaneity and emotional context of the utterance are key factors in its admissibility.

The determination of whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance depends heavily on the circumstances of the event and the timing of the statement. Courts tend to focus on the closeness in time between the event and the utterance, as well as the nature of the event. If a declarant is still experiencing excitement or stress related to the event, their statements are more likely to be admissible. The rationale behind this is that the lack of time for reflection diminishes the chance that the declarant will distort the truth in their statement.

Key cases illustrate the application of the excited utterance exception. For example, in *State v. Edwards* (2001), the court admitted a victim's spontaneous statements made just moments after a violent crime, emphasizing the immediacy of the event's impact. In *United States v. Smith* (2009), the court ruled that statements made during a chaotic and sudden situation, such as a shooting, were admissible as excited utterances. These cases demonstrate how courts evaluate the criteria for excited utterances, balancing spontaneity against the potential for narration or reflection.

Practical application of this concept can be seen in various real life and hypothetical situations. For instance, if a witness sees a traffic accident and immediately cries out about the details of what happened, those statements may qualify as excited utterances and can be utilized in court as evidence of the event. However, if the witness reflects and then makes a statement hours later, it likely would not meet the criteria.

On exams, students should be prepared to analyze whether a given statement fits within the excited utterance exception and apply case law to support their analyses of spontaneous statements.

• 1United States v. Edwards (2001) - admitted spontaneous statements made by a victim immediately following a violent crime.
• 2United States v. Smith (2009) - emphasized that statements made in a chaotic situation, such as a shooting, could qualify as excited utterances.
• 3State v. Johnson (1984) - established the importance of the time factor in evaluating the spontaneity of utterances in the context of exciting events.
• 4New Jersey v. Duperry (1990) - noted that the emotional state of the declarant at the time of the statement is crucial for its admissibility as an excited utterance.
• 5People v. Ramirez (1995) - highlighted how courts determine the impact of a startling event on a declarant's capability to fabricate or recall.

• what-is-hearsay-evidence
• exceptions-to-hearsay-rule
• how-to-determine-relevance-in-evidence