What Are The Elements Of Excited Utterance in Evidence?

The elements of an excited utterance include: (1) a startling event, (2) a statement made by a declarant while under the stress of excitement caused by that event, and (3) the statement must relate to the event or condition that precipitated the excitement.

The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule permits certain statements to be admissible as evidence, based on the premise that spontaneous statements made during or shortly after a startling event are reliable. The first element is the occurrence of a startling event or condition that causes a high degree of excitement in the declarant. This event must be significant enough to disrupt the normal reflective thought process.

The second element requires that the statement must be made while the declarant is still under the stress of excitement caused by the event. This means that there should be little to no time to reflect or fabricate a statement. The spontaneity of the utterance is critical; indicators of spontaneity include the timing of the statement in relation to the event.

The third element is that the statement must relate directly to the startling event. This connection reinforces the statement's reliability as it stems directly from the excitement that the event induced. Courts assess the relevance of the statement concerning the event to ensure it is appropriately categorized as an excited utterance.

Key cases often cited to illustrate these elements include *State v. White* (2001), where the court identified the requirement of spontaneity, and *Bishop v. State* (1992), which emphasized the need for a connection between the utterance and the startling event. It is also important to note that the excited utterance exception can vary slightly by jurisdiction, so students should be mindful of local rules and precedents.

In conclusion, understanding the elements of excited utterance is vital as they significantly affect the admissibility of evidence in trials. Law students should practice applying these elements to hypothetical scenarios to solidify their grasp of how to identify excited utterances in real case contexts.

• 1State v. White (2001) - emphasized spontaneity and connection to the event.
• 2Bishop v. State (1992) - focused on the relationship between the statement and the startling event.
• 3People v. O'Sullivan (1992) - illustrated the application of the excited utterance rule in practice.

• what-is-hearsay-in-evidence
• difference-between-hearsay-and-excited-utterance
• how-to-admit-evidence-in-court