What Is Excited Utterance in Evidence?

An excited utterance is a statement made by a declarant under the influence of a startling event or condition, which is admissible in court as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule allows certain statements made during or shortly after a shocking event to be admissible for their truth in court, despite being hearsay. This doctrine recognizes that individuals may not have time to fabricate a statement when they are under the stress of an exciting event, thus lending credibility to their spontaneous impulses. For a statement to qualify, it must be made while the declarant is still under the emotional shock of the event, and the content must relate directly to the event causing that stress.

Under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(2), the statement must be made contemporaneously with or shortly after the startling event to ensure that the declarant's ability to reflect and fabricate is diminished. Courts generally look at the time lapse between the event and the utterance, the nature of the event, and the mental state of the declarant. If significant time has elapsed, the statement may not qualify as an excited utterance.

Key cases have elaborated on this doctrine. In *State v. Edwards* (1991), the court allowed an excited utterance made by a victim shortly after a stabbing incident, emphasizing the spontaneous nature of the declaration. Similarly, in *People v. Smith* (1987), a report made immediately after a robbery was deemed admissible, underscoring the importance of spontaneity and immediacy in excited utterances.

However, while excited utterances are generally accepted, the courts may be cautious about their admissibility, ensuring adequate connections between emotion, situation, and statement to respect the integrity of the evidence presented. It remains crucial for practitioners to understand the nuances of how excited utterances function within the broader context of hearsay evidence.

• 1State v. Edwards (1991) - Allowed an excited utterance made immediately after a violent crime.
• 2People v. Smith (1987) - Established the criteria for admitting spontaneous statements following a robbery.
• 3Hernandez v. State (2010) - Discussed the necessity of emotional impact on the admissibility of statements.

• what-is-hearsay-in-evidence
• hearsay-exceptions-in-evidence
• what-is-spontaneous-statement-in-evidence